The French like to make fun of the British, joking about their repressed ways in matters of the heart. But when it came time to debate same-sex marriage, it was France that betrayed a deep conservative streak in sometimes violent protests - while the British showed themselves to be modern and tolerant.
By GREGORY KATZ and ANGELA CHARLTON (AP)
Continued...
By GREGORY KATZ and ANGELA CHARLTON (AP)
LONDON —
The French like to make fun of the British, joking about their repressed ways in matters of the heart. But when it came time to debate same-sex marriage, it was France that betrayed a deep conservative streak in sometimes violent protests - while the British showed themselves to be modern and tolerant.
With little fanfare or controversy, Britain announced Wednesday that Queen Elizabeth II - hardly a social radical - had signed into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriages in England and Wales. France has also legalized gay marriages, but only after a series of gigantic protests attracting families from the traditional heartland that revealed a deeply split society.
Official word that the queen had approved the bill drew cheers in the usually sedate House of Commons.
"This is a historic moment that will resonate in many people's lives," Equalities Minister Maria Miller said in a statement. "I am proud that we have made it happen and I look forward to the first same sex wedding by next summer."
There were British political figures and religious leaders vehemently opposed to gay marriage but the opposition never reached a fever pitch, in part because the same-sex marriage bill had broad public support and the backing of the leaders of the three major political parties. In fact, it was Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the tradition-minded Conservatives, who proposed the legislation in the first place.
The public seemed to take it for granted that gay marriage should be a part of British life. It was perhaps a sign of how Britain has evolved in past decades into a much more cosmopolitan nation than its starchy, traditionalist image would suggest.
"The opposition seemed restricted to a very small number of people very vigorous in their views," said Steven Fielding, a political scientist at the University of Nottingham. "It was restricted to the back benchers of the Conservative Party. It wasn't shared across the political spectrum. It was an issue whose time had come. To oppose it seemed slightly strange."
The French like to make fun of the British, joking about their repressed ways in matters of the heart. But when it came time to debate same-sex marriage, it was France that betrayed a deep conservative streak in sometimes violent protests - while the British showed themselves to be modern and tolerant.
With little fanfare or controversy, Britain announced Wednesday that Queen Elizabeth II - hardly a social radical - had signed into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriages in England and Wales. France has also legalized gay marriages, but only after a series of gigantic protests attracting families from the traditional heartland that revealed a deeply split society.
Official word that the queen had approved the bill drew cheers in the usually sedate House of Commons.
"This is a historic moment that will resonate in many people's lives," Equalities Minister Maria Miller said in a statement. "I am proud that we have made it happen and I look forward to the first same sex wedding by next summer."
There were British political figures and religious leaders vehemently opposed to gay marriage but the opposition never reached a fever pitch, in part because the same-sex marriage bill had broad public support and the backing of the leaders of the three major political parties. In fact, it was Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the tradition-minded Conservatives, who proposed the legislation in the first place.
The public seemed to take it for granted that gay marriage should be a part of British life. It was perhaps a sign of how Britain has evolved in past decades into a much more cosmopolitan nation than its starchy, traditionalist image would suggest.
"The opposition seemed restricted to a very small number of people very vigorous in their views," said Steven Fielding, a political scientist at the University of Nottingham. "It was restricted to the back benchers of the Conservative Party. It wasn't shared across the political spectrum. It was an issue whose time had come. To oppose it seemed slightly strange."
Comment