A conservative night for America?

It's a question I found myself pondering as the markets and world digest the results from last night.  By which I mean, four more years for Obama as President, a Republican House and a Democrat Senate.  Several billion dollars later, and we're seemingly back where we started.  Obama teased supporters with claims of 'the best is still to come', but unlike the Parliamentary system of government, he is limited by a legislature which was seemingly broken before the election, and is likely to remain broken when the new Congress take up their seats in January.

Moreover, America is still staring down the barrel of a gun at a budget crisis which needs resolving before the year is out.

I made clear yesterday my support for Obama, and my expectation that he would indeed win.  Yet, four years on from his first victory, warm words and promises are not enough for this observer.  His promise to LGBT voters (seen on this page of his website) was just one commitment - to not be Mitt Romney.  Beyond that, he made not one pledge on LGBT rights.  Yes, he's better than Romney.  Yes, Romney would have been bad news for LGBT rights, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to keep poking Obama with a stick.

The Supreme Court

So what's coming up?  Perry and the issue of constitutionality and same-sex marriage is heading to the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Ginsberg, has indicated she's considering standing down (she's 79) and that means a moderate Democrat could replace her in this Presidential term.  The question is whether to risk waiting until the mid-terms and the hope of Democrats re-taking the House.  Of course, they could end up losing the Senate so I'd expect a new Supreme Court Justice appointment sooner rather than later.  This offers an opportunity to renew the status quo.  Scalia will be 80 in four years time and a Democrat Presidential victory in 2016 could offer an opportunity to re-balance the Court, but it's unlikely - it seems to me - to happen before then.  All of which matters, when deciding issues such as same-sex rights, and the continued debates around abortion.  Better preserve the status quo than end up having a clear Republican-controlled Supreme Court (as would have been likely with a Romney victory).

The Result

The American electoral college system means that Obama won convincingly, and also won measured by the popular vote.  However, the votes in individual States were very close and if anything served to illustrate just how divided socially, politically, and economically America is in 2012.  It's going to take more than fine oratory to fix it.

Nonetheless, as this campaign advanced (and with some gentle prodding from the Vice President), Obama seems to have increasingly found a voice on LGBT issues as he recognised the need to energise his base and re-create the coalition of voters that elected him back in 2008.   Hopefully, this will continue in office, combining hard-policy with cultural leadership.

Coupled with the ticking bomb of a demography shift between now and 2016, and no election will ever be the same again.  Some Republicans- notably Jeb Bush - understand this and have spoken eloquently of the need to change, but the dominant Tea Party tendency does not.  Just as with the British Conservative Party, they have established themselves as 'the nasty party' in the minds of many and will need to modernise and re-cast themselves in 2016.  If they want to be in with a shot in 2016, they need to take some quantum leaps on social issues -such as same-sex marriage, and also on race.  If they fail to do so, they will never hold the Presidency again.

A Representative Breakthrough?

We can rejoice in some truly wonderful results.  Tammy Baldwin (who I mentioned in my post yesterday) made history by becoming the first out Senator-elect.  Well done Wisconsin!  She is replaced in her House seat by openly gay man Mark Pocan.  They are among a number of openly gay men and women who were elected at a Federal and State level.   This is important not only for having strong LGBT voices in elected politics, not only for having people in office who 'get it', but also for providing visible role-models to LGBT youth and for creating visible community leaders who happen to identify as LGBT.  They are creating change legally, and also socially.

However, we shouldn't get carried away.  Michele Bachmann, former candidate for the Republican nomination - and someone who seems bat shit crazy to many European eyes - narrowly won in Minnesota.

Ballot Measures:  Marriage

Beyond the national race a series of ballot measures took place which are likely to deliver transformative change to millions.   Maine, Maryland and Washington have all voted in favour of introducing same-sex marriage in state ballots.  Minnesota (the same state that re-elected Bachmann) faced a vote on amending the constitution to effectively ban same-sex marriage and the amendment was rejected.  A clean sweep for LGBT campaigners.  Add in two states - Washington and Colorado - legalising the recreational use of marijuana, and you could be forgiven for thinking that America had suddenly swerved towards a liberal future.

Ballot Measures:  Sex Trafficking

However, take a look at what might be called a Democrat state - California - and you  see a different picture.  A measure to finally remove the death penalty was rejected whilst a new measure to toughen the law on sex trafficking (and arguably creating more problems than it solves in relation to sex work) was passed.

The official (and impartial) advice set out the implications of passing the measure on trafficking:

This measure makes several changes to state law related to human trafficking. Specifically, it (1) expands the definition of human trafficking, (2) increases the punishment for human trafficking offenses, (3) imposes new fines to fund services for human trafficking victims, (4) changes how evidence can be used against human trafficking victims, and (5) requires additional law enforcement training on handling human trafficking cases. The measure also places additional requirements on sex offender registrants.

Expanded Definition of Human Trafficking. This measure amends the definition of human trafficking under state law. Specifically, the measure defines more crimes related to the creation and distribution of obscene materials depicting minors as a form of human trafficking. For example, duplicating or selling these obscene materials could be considered human trafficking even if the offender had no contact with the minor depicted. In addition, with regard to sex trafficking cases involving minors, prosecutors would not have to show that force or coercion occurred. (This would make state law similar to federal law.)

More Severe Criminal Penalties for Human Trafficking. This measure increases the current criminal penalties for human trafficking under state law. For example, the measure increases the prison sentence for labor trafficking crimes to a maximum of 12 years per offense, and for sex trafficking of adults to up to 20 years per offense. Sex trafficking of minors that involved force or fraud would be punishable by up to a life term in prison. In addition, the measure specifies that offenders convicted of human trafficking with previous convictions for human trafficking receive additional five-year prison terms for each of those prior convictions. Under the measure, offenders convicted of human trafficking that resulted in great bodily injury to the victim could be punished with additional terms of up to ten years. The measure also permits criminal courts to impose fines of up to $1.5 million for human trafficking offenses.

Programs for Human Trafficking Victims. The measure requires that the funds collected from the above fines support services for victims of human trafficking. Specifically, 70 percent of funds would be allocated to public agencies and nonprofit organizations that provide direct services to such victims. The measure requires that the remaining 30 percent be provided to law enforcement and prosecution agencies in the jurisdiction where the charges were filed and used for human trafficking prevention, witness protection, and rescue operations.

Changes Affecting Court Proceedings. The measure also affects the trial of criminal cases involving charges of human trafficking. Specifically, the measure prohibits the use of evidence that a person was involved in criminal sexual conduct (such as prostitution) to prosecute that person for that crime if the conduct was a result of being a victim of human trafficking. The measure also makes evidence of sexual conduct by a victim of human trafficking inadmissible for the purposes of attacking the victim’s credibility or character in court. In addition, this measure disallows certain defenses in human trafficking cases involving minors. For example, a defendant could not claim as a defense being unaware of the minor’s age.

Law Enforcement Training. This measure requires all peace officers employed by police and sheriff’s departments and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) who perform field or investigative work to undergo at least two hours of training on how to handle human trafficking complaints. This training would have to be completed by July 1, 2014 or within six months of the officer being assigned to the field or investigative work.

 Expanded Requirements for Sex Offender Registration. This measure requires registered sex offenders to provide the names of their internet providers and identifiers to local police or sheriff’s departments. Such identifiers include e-mail addresses, user names, screen names, or other personal identifiers for internet communication and activity. If a registrant changes his or her internet service account or changes or adds an internet identifier, the individual must notify law enforcement within 24 hours of such changes.

Although undoubtedly well meaning, the measure has the effect of extending the definition of 'trafficking' to extend those acts which people would not ordinarily consider to be part of the same legal problem.  Consensual sex work arguably falls within the ambit of the measure and anyone receiving financial benefit from this activity could be prosecuted and forced to register as a sex offender.  It's badly drafted and could have a series of unintended consequences.

Ballot Measures: Condoms in Porn

In LA County, the much-discussed 'condom measure' was passed.  With 55.85% in favour, Measure B.  Here's what the 'official' advice stated on this measure:

The proposed amendment would require producers of adult films to obtain a public health permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (the "Department") in order to engage in the production of adult films for commercial purposes, and to pay a permit fee set by the Department to offset the cost of enforcement. The measure would require the use of condoms for all acts of anal or vaginal sex during the production of adult films, as well as the posting of both the public health permit and a notice to performers regarding condom use. Producers are required to provide a written exposure control plan describing how the ordinance will be implemented. A "producer" means any person or entity that produces, finances or directs adult films for commercial purposes. 

Violation of the ordinance would be subject to both civil fines and criminal misdemeanor charges. The Department would be authorized to enforce the provisions of the ordinance, including suspending or revoking the public health permit due to violations of the ordinance, or any other law including applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Code, blood borne pathogen standard, California Code of Regulations, or the exposure plan of the producer. Suspension or revocation of the public health permit requires notice and an opportunity for an administrative review, unless the Department found or reasonably suspected immediate danger to the public health and safety, in which case the Department could immediately suspend or revoke the public health permit, initiate a criminal complaint, or issue a fine, pending an administrative hearing. 

The measure, if approved by the voters, may only be repealed by a subsequent vote of the electors or by an amendment of the Los Angeles County Charter superseding the ordinance. The Board of Supervisors is authorized to amend the ordinance by a majority vote in order to further the purposes of the measure.

As I've previously speculated, where LA goes, other may follow.  It is not a California-wide ban, and it will be interesting to see how it operates in practice.  Presumably, some stimulation will be provided to the local economy as the County looks to hire condom inspectors who can monitor the new law.  Unfortunately, any such economic stimulus is likely to be off-set by the exodus of studios as they look elsewhere to film there porn.  Consumers continue to have a clear preference for condomless porn, and so this measure will simply relocate the production of porn, rather than change it.

I'm particularly curious to see if anywhere else seeks to replicate the law.

A conservative settlement?

For Brit observers, you might want to reflect on that powerful speech line deployed by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron - "So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative" - as a reminder that the marriage issue can be re-defined not as an issue of the left, but as a very conservative institution.  I've explored this previously in a HuffPo piece you can check out here.

As much as the same-sex marriage ballot results are victories for the LGBT community, they should also indicate the need for a debate and recognition of plurality when it comes to the expression of identity.  The embrace of domesticity and a very heteronormative concept of marriage holds less appeal to all those queer sluts out there - their identity apparently cast as increasingly embarrassing and a source of discomfort more generally (take the moves to ban nudity in the Castro as but one illustrative example).

Last night and the results that continued to filter through today were truly great for the LGBT community - rightly a source of celebration.  However, let us not lose sight of the battles ahead and the debates the LGBT 'community' must face up to as legal reforms create new social - and indeed legal - pressures and questions that we must all respond to.   We live in an age of increased acceptance of the homosexual identity, but increased silence about homosexual sex.  A curious division of the homo and the sexual, and one that some are starting to debate, discuss and consider (see here)

America Decides

Excitement is building as we count down the final hours to America deciding the next President of the United States.  Like many liberals, my preference for Obama is perhaps to be expected.  I have however - as I've often noted on this blog - found him to be something of a disappointment.  On national issues, he has been far too slow in taking the lead on key issues.  He used his political capital on healthcare reform but could have implemented better, clearer, more thought-through proposals than those he did.  LGBT campaigners are now rallying to his cause, but I've not forgotten the number of American LGBT lawyers and activists who  have repeatedly grumbled about his inaction over the last four years.  Yes, DADT has gone (and that took long enough), but there the Defense of Marriage still sits, and Obama has done little to stick his neck out on LGBT issues.

Of course, this view is not shared by all.  The Human Rights Campaign describes him as 'the most pro-LGBT President in American history' which is probably true, but he wasn't up against much competition.

Anyway, the late polls suggest he will squeak on in, and I suspect they're right, although it's been a while since I was over there to get a sense of the mood.   I would expect the Senate and House to end up more or less as they are now, with no change in control.  All of which means 'more of the same' for the next four years.

Beyond the Presidency

Whilst it is this national race which attracts most of the attention outside of the US, we should also consider a number of other races and votes that are taking place.  The first openly LGBT member of the Senate could be elected on Tuesday night with Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin.  The Democrat candidate has served in the House since 1999 so fingers crossed she has the profile to make the move to the Senate.

Questions of marriage equality will be on the ballot in Maryland, Maine and Washington and a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is up for the vote in Minnesota.

These ballot measures (kind of like several referenda at once) are an alien concept to Brits, but they involve significant amounts of money.  Take the State of California where the subject of ending the death penalty is up (Proposition 34).   $7,635,861 (around £4,700,000) has been raised by supporters of the repeal and $416,555 by opponents (we can therefore perhaps guess which way the vote will go).    To put that in some perspective, the Labour Party spent a total of just over £8 million at the last General election (and the Conservatives double that).

Another measure on the ballot in California (at least for those in LA County) is an additional measure (Measure B).  This measure will require that porn performers have to wear condoms in LA County during a shoot (and inevitably lead to the creation of 'condom Police' to inspect sets to make sure the law is being adhered to).  Here's the full wording:

'Shall an ordinance be adopted requiring producers of adult films to obtain a County public health permit, to require adult film performers to use condoms while engaged in sex acts, to provide proof of blood borne pathogen training course, to post permit and notices to performers, and making violations of the ordinance subject to civil fines and criminal charges?'

You can read more about the measure here.  The LA Times has been giving a lot of publicity to this measure, and seemingly seems to support the law-reform, at least based on their coverage and commentaries.  However, they've also recommended that people vote 'no' - suggesting that the reform is well meaning but ultimately un-enforcable (read their full explanation here).

The National Record:  Obama

Nonetheless, it's the national record that remains the focus.  As much as I might find Obama's record disappointing, his campaign website details a pretty comprehensive list of achievements during his four years:

STANDING UP FOR ALL FAMILIES

Affirmed his personal support for same-sex marriage
Opposed the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act and endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, a legislative effort to repeal DOMA

EDUCATION AND YOUTH

Hosted the first-ever White House conference on bullying in schools to provide information from various government agencies on how kids, teens, young adults, parents, educators, and others in the community can prevent or stop bullying
Created the Inter-Agency Task Force on Bullying to tackle bullying in our schools, including bullying of LGBT youth
Recorded an “It Gets Better” video in support of LGBT youth facing bullying at school

HEALTH CARE

Signed the Affordable Care Act into law, expanding access to health care and critical preventive services
Extended hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights to LGBT patients and their partners Awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal to Janice Langbehn, a lesbian mother and activist whose story paved the way for the extending hospital visitation rights
Affirmed the administration’s commitment to creating an AIDS-free generation Included specific data on health needs of lesbian and bisexual women in the Health Resources and Services Administration’s “Women’s Health USA 2011” report for the first time Promoted equal access to quality health care by enabling searches for health plans with same-sex partner benefits on Healthcare.gov
Included proposals to improve LGBT Americans’ access to health care and provisions to continue the fight against HIV/AIDS in the administration’s 2013 federal budget proposal
Created a National Resource Center for LGBT seniors and awarded a grant to SAGE (Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Elders), supporting the first community center for LGBT seniors

JOBS AND THE ECONOMY

The administration worked to protect federal LGBT employees from workplace discrimination by adopting an equal-opportunity employment policy that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity
Ordered the federal government to extend key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees Clarified the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure family leave for LGBT employees who need to care for their children.
Set a precedent in hiring LGBT employees by appointing more openly LGBT administration officials than any other president in U.S. history Continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

TRANS EQUALITY

Ended the Social Security Administration’s gender “no-match” letters and ensured that transgender Americans can receive passports that accurately reflect their gender identity
Established guidelines to help protect transgender federal employees from discrimination in the workplace
Established policy regarding the respectful delivery of health care to transgender veterans

HOUSING

Announced HUD’s new rule protecting against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity
Released America’s first comprehensive plan to prevent homelessness, including homelessness among LGBT youth Awarded a grant to the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Community Center to work with LGBT foster youth

NATIONAL SECURITY

Ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” so gay and lesbian Americans can serve the country they love without hiding who they are Permitted military chaplains to officiate same-sex marriages where legal

INTERNATIONAL AND LGBT CITIZENS ABROAD

Ended the ban that prohibited people with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States Created the first-ever U.S. government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad
Made it clear the United States will use all the tools of American diplomacy to promote LGBT rights abroad
Fought for the rights of LGBT persons worldwide by co-sponsoring the first UN resolution focused solely on LGBT rights
Directed agencies working abroad to combat the criminalization of LGBT status
Directed the Departments of State and Homeland Security to ensure LGBT refugees and asylum-seekers have equal access to protection and assistance
Prevented the removal of sexual orientation from a UN resolution condemning extrajudicial killings Implemented a U.S. Agency for International Development policy to encourage contractors to implement and enforce non-discrimination policies for sexual orientation and gender identity 

So, that pretty much puts me in my place - but he's not holding anything back from this list -recording a  video message, saying overseas agencies should 'work' against LGBT criminalisation are not 'big' policies (would a British national leader feel the need to record he'd made such a video?), but nor can they be dismissed.

The National Record:  Romney

I also took a look at the Romney campaign website.  He has a grid of all his 'sub-groups'.  In the interests of fairness, here they are:

AMERICANS OF FAITH FOR ROMNEY
ASIAN AMERICANS & PACIFIC ISLANDERS FOR ROMNEY
BLACK LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
CATHOLICS FOR ROMNEY
EDUCATORS FOR ROMNEY
ENERGY VOTERS FOR ROMNEY
FARMERS & RANCHERS FOR ROMNEY
FORMER OBAMA SUPPORTERS FOR ROMNEY
HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS FOR ROMNEY
JEWISH AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY
JUNTOS CON ROMNEY LAWYERS FOR ROMNEY
POLISH AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY
PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONALS FOR ROMNEY ROMNEY
VOTERS FOR FREE ENTERPRISE SPORTSMEN FOR ROMNEY
VETERANS & MILITARY FAMILIES FOR ROMNEY
WOMEN FOR MITT
YOUNG AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY

Yep, I'm afraid there's no LGBT group for Romney.  So, I took a look at the sight to make sure there wasn't a section outlining some specific policies targeted at the LGBT population.  Nope, not one.

I'll be live tweeting my way through the election results.  If you're not already following me, you can find me at @lawandsexuality

The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage

On both sides of the Atlantic, politics seems to have been dominated in recent days by the subject of same-sex marriage (or 'gay marriage' as the British media insist upon calling it).  In the US, the decision to opt for Mitt Romney as the Republican contender in the 2012 Presidential race, rather than his more Conservative (and frankly a wee bit bonkers) contenders meant that the social-issues test (which Santorum had mined in the final weeks of his campaign for the nomination) has now moved back to the Democrats. As Obama toured US College campuses this week (prior to a doubling in interest rates on student loans in the fall), the issue continued to rumble on in the background.  It exploded via NBC's Meet the Press earlier today - a morning show in the US and British viewers can catch it via CNBC at 3pm each Sunday.

The main guest in a pre-recorded interview was the current Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden.  Biden had been in the global press this week following the release (by the US administration) of the so-called 'Osama Papers'.  These represent a small number of the documents seized as part of the bin Laden assassination raid last year.  They revealed that the terrorist leader was keen that Biden should not be killed, as if he became President he would be incompetent and thus lead America astray.  Osama bin Laden instead advocated an assassination attempt on the President and a high-profile military General (thus elevating Biden to the Presidency).  This is important in understanding that Biden needed to demonstrate that he was a serious powerful political figure in his own right when he appeared on Meet the Press today.  That he undoubtedly did with what I considered an assured performance.  Yet it was his comments on the subject of same-sex marriage which caught the attention of the media and social networks.

You can see the key section of his interview in the clip below:



Biden indicated that he was 'comfortable with same-sex marriage', but he did walk something of a tightrope in the interview.  He talked about people obtaining the same civil rights as heterosexuals - that doesn't necessarily equate to same-sex marriage but the overall positive tone of the interview gave the strong impression that he personally would support same-sex marriage, that his views on the subject had evolved, and that the focus of the debate should be on 'love'.  He seemed a guy genuinely moved by encountering people and learning of their lived experiences.  It seemed a judgement based on a human calculation rather than one arrived at after careful constitutional and legal consideration.

Obama has not been able to convey this to date - a man who is despite the rantings of some on the far right, is a centrist political figure.  Obama campaign chief David Axelrod tweeted that it was the same-position as the President of the United States (thanks to Kate Sheill for alerting me to this).  The tweet was aimed at NBC political correspondent Chuck Todd who can be seen on NBC's Nightly News and who took to Meet the Press to comment on the significance of the announcement.  The Advocate also immediately ran a new lead story that the VP supports same-sex marriage.  In truth, both sides are kinda right.  The media ran with the impression that Biden - a canny operator - gave in his interview.  He did not however commit the Obama regime to moving any further forward on the same-sex marriage issue. Instead, he re-iterated the focus upon 'rights' (as opposed to the institution of marriage), a legal divide that Obama has clung to.  

This is to take the view that marriage is about acquiring rights and responsibilities, rather than about joining an 'institution' (i.e marriage) per se.  The Obama position is that it's OK to have the rights, but not to join the institution (irrespective of whether the institution would like you).

So where does this leave us?  The answer is 'we'll have to see'.  The ball is now in the court of the media and Republicans.  Romney could use the issue to assure Republicans that he's Conservative enough by attacking the VP.  Yet he also wants to position himself in the political centre in time for the general election in the fall. He could challenge Obama: "what's the President's position on this?  The American people have a right to know", although any journalist will ask him his position (thus potentially back-firing on Romney).

Obama would then come under pressure, and doesn't want to be the guy defending same-sex marriage at this time (it would alienate some in the centre) or be the guy advocating his current half baked position (civil unions, don't like same-sex marriage but OK if States want to do, but oops we still have DOMA which prevents that being federally recognised)  as this is a position which de-motivates core Democrats.  In other words, it's a lose-lose issue for Obama but one the media may be keen to peruse.  As things stand, we've had some interesting verbal comments, but no change in substance.

Meanwhile, back on this side of the Atlantic, this week saw local elections take place up and down the country.  Liberal Democrats took another hammering and the Tories also received a pounding.  Ed Milliband's Labour party did well in the polls.  Talk on election night quickly moved to stories of another 'Rose Garden Moment' between Nick Clegg and David Cameron as they caught to re-cement the coalition.   David Cameron - it seemed to be briefed -would refocus on issues of the family, and the economy.  In other words, he would throw his own supporters a bit of red meat.  Nick Clegg on the other hand offered nothing to his increasingly jittery followers who must surely be questioning whether they want this man to lead them over a cliff at the next general election.

The Sunday Times led with the headline (£ link) 'PM in retreat over gay marriage', and the issue was raised with Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne on the Andrew Marr show this morning.  Joe Biden he ain't, and although I suspect he's actually very sympathetic on the issue - more so than Cameron despite his public persona.  Osborne ducked the issue in initial questioning and later added that measures wouldn't be in the forthcoming Queen's Speech (which sets out the legislative agenda for the next 12 months).  A number of social media folks commented that this was hardly surprising given the consultation doesn't end until June.  I confess that my brain had short-circuited and I had (I turn red as I admit this) forgotten that the Queen's Speech is now always in the Spring.  This means that any measure on same-sex marriage won't occur until after May 2013.  We knew this before Osborne's interview this morning and we know exactly as much afterwards.

This means that any slowing down is a misleading message to Tory back-benchers.  In reality, it's at least 12 months off and always has been.  However, Osborne did have an opportunity to say that he was personally in favour, or that the government hoped that the consultation was positive, and anticipated bringing forward legislation in Spring 2012.  He didn't.  Politically, he had absolutely no need to.  I would have been pleased, and so would many other activists but in all probability we won't vote for him or his party.  Party groups which support same-sex marriage can equally be assured from the ST story that slowing down does not mean the ultimate destination has changed.  It is in fact Cameron's right-wing back-benchers and his Conservative Association's across the country who will be most annoyed.  An attempt to re-assure them was cynical and misleading in the extreme.

All of which probably explains why Nadine - you wouldn't like me when I'm angry - Dorries, the one-woman machine of an MP - went on the attack this afternoon by saying that gay marriage is a policy of the 'elite', and once again slammed same-sex marriage proposals.  Dorries - divorced, and now on the rebound from a relationship with a married man - perhaps understandably seems to have something against marriage.  I too am something of a sceptic, yet I don't seek to deny rights and freedoms to a section of society because of a heady mixture of political dogma, mumbo-jumbo religion and a series of unfortunate experiences with men.

I remain of the view that same-sex marriage will be a reality during the term of this government.  The question is whether it will be in 2013 or 2014.  Liberal Democrats have an opportunity to offer a firmer position on this issue - to indicate that 'all being well with the consultation', they 'expect' legislation to be brought forward in 2013, because it's 'the right thing to do'.  Their failure to do so this weekend is yet another disappointment from a leadership which seems to have lost its way.

US Mid-Term Elections and Gay Rights

As the world turns its attention to America and the Mid-Term elections, it's a fair bet that most coverage will focus on numbers and what it means for the Obama Presidency. Yet we shouldn't forget that the elections are also important for legal and policy changes in individual states. The Bay Area Reporter includes an excellent summary of the key figures and states. Check it out here.