Just two days after Canadian members of Parliament passed same-sex marriage legislation, Spanish lawmakers have voted to allow gays and lesbians to legally marry.
We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last," Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told the chamber. "After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality."
Zapatero’s Socialist government proposed the legislation shortly after winning the 2004 elections.
Spanish gay couples can get married as soon as the law is published in the official government registry, which could come as early as Friday, or within two weeks at the latest, the parliament’s press office said.
One has to wonder whether Spain’s gays and lesbians have George Bush to thank! After all, Zapatero’s Socialists were swept into power in March 2004 as a result of a massive voter backlash against Spanish Conservative support for the American intervention in Iraq. I must confess, I rather like the idea that the legalization of gay marriage in Spain is an unintended consequence of the Iraq War. Under Franco, homosexuality was a crime; less than thirty years later, what was once the most reactionary state in Western Europe has become only the third country (after Belgium and the Netherlands) on the continent to give full equality to gays and lesbians. Who could ever have predicted that Spain would do this before, say, Norway or Sweden or Germany? Surely the Iraq story factors into the equation.
For social conservatives across the globe, this must be disheartening news. How can the right fight coordinated battles against gay marriage in Spain, Canada, the USA, New Zealand, and elsewhere simultaneously? Here in the States, I hear nothing from the Republican-dominated Congress about the Federal Marriage Amendment. What say you, social conservatives? Has your fearless leader betrayed you? The president champions Social Security reform, he champions the war in Iraq, but where are his stump speeches for a national marriage amendment? Are you disappointed? Frustrated? Is it beginning to become evident that though you may have fought the good fight, whatever happens in individual American states cannot stop the inexorable advance of full equality for gays and lesbians across the globe?
I don’t mean to sound as if I’m gloating. But I am happy that the anti-gay backlash that seemed so potent last November seems to have faded so quickly. I’m not yet ready to predict that the anti-equality forces have hit their zenith, but I suspect that they’re awfully close.
On a related note, see this post on Canadian marriage and gay history by my fellow Cliopatriarch, Greg Robinson.
I’m off to give summer midterms.
Over? Hugo, the anti-gay backlash is just beginning.
There is a strong effort underway to undermine gay rights in California (heavily funded, as was Prop 22, by the Mormons) by a constitutional amendment that would render our DP gains moot.
In massachusetts, where the sky has NOT fallen, Mitt Romney (positioning himself for a presidential run) is working to disallow gay marriage. There is still an amendment process underway in Massachusetts that would invalidate what has already happened. Romney is withdrawing his support from the compromise amendment that would have provided civil unions as an alternative in order to disallow ANY rights for gays and curry favor with the Religious Right.
In Virginia, the law actually disallows any private legal arrangments that would protect gay couples (as in powers of attorney, etc. how they can do this without impacting equal protection, I don’t know, but Virginia Is For Haters). In Michigan, Amendment 2 has already led to loss of DP benefits that were already awarded.
It isn’t over, Hugo. For those of us who are gay, we are increasingly afraid.
BTW I like to point out that when courts banned laws that blocked interracial marriage, the majority of Americans were opposed. In fact it wasn’t until relatively recently that the majority of Americans thought it was OK. This is something I remember every time I hear about those “activist judges” who want to protect the minority from the mob-rule of the majority.
If you go read the anti-”miscegenation” court cases, the language is almost exactly like the arguments against same-sex marriage.
Small peeve that it’s same-sex marriage, not “gay marriage” or “gay and lesbian marriage,” btw.
“Who could ever have predicted that Spain would do this before, say, Norway or Sweden or Germany?”
And indeed, who could have predicted that any country would do it before the United States, which once showed such great promise in being the world leader in the extension of such freedoms?
I know socialists are fond of rewriting history, but c’mon, there have to be some standards. Have you completely forgotten what all the pre-March 11, 2004 polls predicted? Or what happened on March 11, 2004 to change all that? Here’s a hint: it wasn’t millions of Spanish voters who originally supported Operation Iraqi Freedom, only to change their minds after pouring into movie theaters in Madrid to watch sneak previews of Fahrenheit 9-11.
Thank the Spanish government for passing gay marriage if you like, but if you’re going to thank anybody outside Spain for putting that government into power, you’d better thank al-Qaeda, not George Bush.
But why, XRLQ, did al-Qaeda target Madrid? ONLY because of Aznar’s support for Bush’s war. Why wasn’t France bombed? Or Germany?
From Hugo:
“For social conservatives across the globe, this must be disheartening news.”
and
“Is it beginning to become evident that though you may have fought the good fight, whatever happens in individual American states cannot stop the inexorable advance of full equality for gays and lesbians across the globe?”
I guess by social conservatives and full equality across the globe what you really mean is U.S./Canada/Europe. That is what I would expect from a Eurocentric “White is right” attitude. Throughout Africa and Muslim nations, across much of east-Asia including India, and even in most countries of South America, most beleive homosexuality should not be accepted by society, forget about the question of gay marriage.
This is clearly not just a Religious Conservative White Boy issue. In the last presidential election, none of the mainstream Democratic candidates (Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards, or Graham) supported gay marriage, although they did support civil unions. Either they don’t support gay marriage (evidently) or they’ve got no guts and won’t tell you what they really believe (you’ve got convictions or you don’t). There is less support for gay marriage in the U.S. by Hispanics and Blacks than there is by Whites. Even the Navajo and Cherokee Nations have recently banned same-sex marriages.
You can gloat if you like, but your fearless leaders have shown plenty of fear on the subject and the globe just may be a little bigger than previously thought.
Well, Dave, check out this link; the Third World makes progress too!
Like Xrlg said: Hugo, you’ve got to be kidding?! Thank Al-Quaeda for the current Spanish govt., not G.W. Bush.
It’s also, I suspect, something you made up. Anti-miscegenation laws were popular for a while, but by the time the U.S. Supreme Court got around to banning them in Loving v. Virginia, all but 16 states had repealed them on their own. Of those 16, all but one (Oklahoma) were former slave states. If a solid majority of Americans still favored miscegenation bans in 1967, isn’t it a bit odd that a democratically elected Congress and the democratically elected legislatures of 34 states didn’t?
Not that this analogy would mean much anyway. It’s a bit like saying “They laughed at Galileo in his day, but today we know he was right. Today they laugh at me, so I must be right, too.” The flaw in that theory is that people conveniently forget that they didn’t just laugh at Galileo; they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
davejones, point conceded. Most national figures in my political party are rather cowardly on this issue, and it saddens and frustrates me. I think most of them are quite aware of what justice requires, and they’re worried about the perception that will accompany putting voice to those views, and not without good reason, given the make-up of public opinion.
Yet I agree with Hugo–while I can be quite pessimistic about many issues, this is one I’m quite confident we’re winning in the next few decades. Of the conservatives in my college classes, only the college Republican hardcores, the ones who eerily repeat talking points, seem all that concerned about gay marriage, and many young conservatives openly support it. Public opinion bears this anecdotal observation out–those under 40 generally support gay rights and same-sex marriage at a much higher rate, and (perhaps more importantly)those who oppose it tend to care about the issue much, much less than older opponents of same sex marriage. Furthermore, the culture is changing, and as homosexuality is presented as normal(ish) and harmless, more children of homophobes will become quietly embarrassed by their parents concerns. Over 90% of white americans opposed interracial marriage in 1958, and that fear upheld by the same three pillars of opposition to same sex marriage–convenient religious justification, hand-wringing about the delicate fabric of society, and good old-fashioned bigotry. This stuff can change quickly, and there are many good reasons to think it will.
(on the emerging argument about the cause of the Madrid attacks, can we all just calmly agree that the trajectory of Bush and Anwar’s foreign policy and the homocidal madness of al-queada are, in themselves, necessary but not sufficient conditions for the electoral outcome?)
Which, all the lefties told us, supposedly had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Given that the two had absolutely, positively nothing to do with one another, it is rather odd how eager al-Qaeda was to intervene on behalf its non-ally. In any event, it’s clear voters responded to the terrorist act, not to Aznar’s support of “Bush’s war.” They didn’t learn anything about Aznar’s support of “Bush’s war” on 3-11-04 that they didn’t already know on 3-10-04.
Oh, I dunno, maybe because they could, which is the same reason why on 9-11-01 al-Qaeda murdered thousands of Americans from blue states that overwhelmingly voted for Al Gore less than a year earlier, and has gone on to murder thousands in small countries that play negligible roles (or none at all) in the war on terror. Or maybe because there was an election to sabotage in Spain but not in France or Germany. Or maybe al-Qaeda learned its lesson when 9-11 backfired, and has since adopted a strategy of only mounting similar attacks on fledgling democracies like Spain and Iraq, and not on mature ones like France and Germany. Or maybe they figured out that Aznar’s government was a real threat to al-Qaeda, while Chirac’s France and Schroeder’s Germany were the most al-Qaeda-friendly governments they could realistically hope for in those countries. Or maybe some combination of the above.
Whatever al-Qaeda’s motives were for targeting Spain when it did, one thing is clear: it worked. I’m frankly baffled that you, a self-proclaimed pacifist, would so glibly excuse an act of mass murder, and even blame it on your own President rather than on the mass murderers who committed it. Are you really for peace, or are you are you just on the other side?
Not that this analogy would mean much anyway.
It means about as much as saying “Most Americans don’t want it.” If the citizens of a former slave state overwhelmingly didn’t want interracial marriage legalized, where did the era’s equivalent of blue-staters get off telling them what to do with their laws?
I would wager that most Americans don’t want sixty-year-old men marrying fifteen-year-old girls, either. But nobody suggests we should have a Constitutional amendment banning those marriages, or that California ought to refuse to recognize such a wedding if it were legally performed in Mississippi.
It means about as much as saying “Most Americans don’t want it.” If the citizens of a former slave state overwhelmingly didn’t want interracial marriage legalized, where did the era’s equivalent of blue-staters get off telling them what to do with their laws?
From the Fourteenth Amendment which, if construed in a commonsense manner from the beginning, would have nipped Jim Crow laws in the bud, but which wouldn’t have done a thing with respect to allegations of discrimination by sex, let alone by sexual orientation (let WAY alone allegations of discrimination by sexual orientation that are disingenuously dressed up as allegations of discrimination by sex).
It’s not a question of whether California should refuse to recognize such a wedding, only whether it should be allowed to do so, which it is. As currently written, Section 308 of the California Family Code provides that out of state marriages are recognized if valid under the laws of the state where they are solemnized, but the Legislature could change that law anytime it wanted to. [I suppose that even under existing law, a “hail Mary” argument could be made that a 15 year old girl is not a “woman” for purposes of Section 308.5, in which case the marriage could be invalidated under the one-man, one-woman rule, but I’m not going there.] In any event, the questions of what government acts are “public acts,” when states must recognize them, what effects such recognition shall have, and the like are all distinct from the substantive argument of whether the individuals involved had a Constitution-given “right” to engage in the activity in question. I don’t thing anyone seriously argues that a 15 year old girl have a Constitutional “right” to marry at that age; it’s just that not every single legislature has passed a law saying she can’t, so she’s allowed to do so by default.
For XRLQ: i don’t like being accused of making up facts.
In 1991 a Gallop Poll found that, for the first time, more people in the United States approved of interracial marriages (48%) then disapproved (42%). That’s NINETEEN NINETY ONE.
Cited in http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/s98alouis.htm
which references Art Shriberg & Carol Lloyd, Interracial Couple Fights Prejudice Taboo Slowly Dying as Marriages Rise, The Cincinnati Enquirer, (June 8, 1997).
i have also seen references to this in numerous other places.
Elsewhere I have read that over 70% of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage at the time of the Loving decision.
See, this is why there is a Constitution: so that the rights of a minority aren’t trampled by the dislikes of a majority. Or perhaps to put it another way: in those days, legislators had the good sense not to attack minorities for no good reason.
So much for the good old days. Where’s my pink triangle?
You can take NZ out of your calculations right now. I’ll make sure of that.
“You don’t mean to sound like you’re gloating”
Rubbish. You are. Disgustingly. :-)
John, I can’t find out when the next elections are in New Zealand.. is it later this summer?
IT, I hope that web page you linked to was designed by an undergraduate, because the writing quality is horrible. The references to “Gallop” polls are bad enough, but they were merely the tip of the iceberg.
Assuming that the author of the page did a better job researching her conclusions than she did spelling them, the Gallup Poll to which you refer does not answer anything. Loving v. Virginia isn’t about whether white people approve or disapprove of their daughters marrying black men, or vice-versa. It’s about whether or not the state has a right to legislate such preferences for everybody. If 70% of the U.S. population actually wanted anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, a lot more than 16 states would have had them then, and Loving itself would have been short-lived due to an easy constitutional amendment.
In the end, none of this matters. All that matters - or should, anyway - is that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit invidious racial discrimination. It was never intended to allow gays or anyone else to sue for a “right” to redefine marriage to their liking. Want to change the definition of marriage? Fine, start lobbying your legislator like everyone else.
You’re pretty funny, XRLQ. First, you say I must have made up the data, then when it turns out I didn’t, you say it’s not relevant anyway.
It’s about whether or not the state has a right to legislate such preferences for everybody.
yeah, that’s the crux of it, isn’t it?
If 70% of the U.S. population actually wanted anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, a lot more than 16 states would have had them then,
XRLQ: You’ve fallen prey to a common misperception about legislative activity here. Legislatures aren’t always reflexively majoritarian. There are lots of reasons legislatures often don’t do what the majority wants. A few examples:
When the majority is cuts accross party constituencies, upsetting traditional coalitions.
When the minority cares much more about the issue than the majority.
When the members of the legislature disagree with the majority, and are confident (often with good reason) that they are strong enough in other areas to weather the popularity hit.
When key committees are controlled by minority constituency.
I could go on, but you get the point. There’s just no systematic data that suggests that legislatures, especially as constructed in the United States, are inherently majoritarian.
Roe vs. Wade, for example, was much more “majoritarian” than the status quo amongst state laws at the time it was decided. It was (and is) widely supported in public opinion, but very few states had abortion law close to as liberal as Roe, and most state bills were dead in their tracks at the time. (not to imply that courts are inherently majoritarian, or more majoritarian in general than legislatures–they’re clearly not. But neither is the opposite the case.)
As for that 91 poll, I’ve seen it mentioned numerous times, so if it’s a hoax perpetrated by misspellers of gallup, it’s a widespread one.
I wish I could find the source for my data on the 58 poll, but I can’t. It is cited in one of the major American Politics texts used in intro college classes, but not one of the ones I happen to have on hand.
September. The PM thought about going early, but the National Party are now ahead in the polls (On back of recent government stupidity, including Civil Unions), so that’s out.
How can the right fight coordinated battles against gay marriage in Spain, Canada, the USA, New Zealand, and elsewhere simultaneously?
The same way the left can fight coordinated battled *for* gay marriage in all those countries. I’d say the fact that there are so many battles all over the world is an advantage for the right — since they’re defending the status quo, they have inertia on their side.
“Just two days after Canadian members of Parliament passed same-sex marriage legislation, Spanish lawmakers have voted to allow gays and lesbians to legally marry.”
I hate to be a killjoy but I predict the whole gay marriage issue will eventually wind up being much ado about nothing…as everyone will eventually have the RIGHT to marry while few will actually do it…
I know MANY gay men where I live and MOST of them do NOT even WANT to get married…but they say they want the RIGHT to get married even though they themselves have no intention of ever doing so…
Sigh…
So let’s see where it all ends…
Hello from Spain Hugo.. did you know that BEFORE train attacks more than than 60% spaniards wanted a change of government?
did you know that spain has a long experience against terrorism fighting since 60’s against basque, marxist and even other islamic groups like Fatah, Islamic Jihad or GIA who killed or tried to act in Spain?
did you know that while usa economy grown rate was affected after 9/11, spanish economy wasnt affected at all and grew even faster?
Hugo, thank you.. but we are not so stupid and we know how we have to fight against terrorism, you can get information and not only the fox news propaganda here on the net, it will help you and you wont say funny things about my country that just make me laugh.
Seterom,
Donde vivez? Escribes Ingles muy bien.
Hola Mercedes, vivo en España, soy español. Gracias por tu comentario pero mi inglés es bastante básico : ), te lo agradezco. Encontre por casualidad este sitio y me resulto divertido leer algunas cosas desde una posicion tan alejada de la realidad.
Hola Mercedes, vivo en España, soy español. Gracias por tu comentario pero mi inglés es bastante básico : ), te lo agradezco. Encontre por casualidad este sitio y me resulto divertido leer algunas cosas desde una posicion tan alejada de la realidad.
Hola Seterom,
Mis abuelos nacieron en Espana, soy Cubana. Yo tambien encuentro este sitio divertido!
Hola Seterom,
Tu respuesta es ‘no’?….
Seterom: ¿en cuáles noticias está escito que la población española hiba a eligir el gobierno socialista antes del 11 de marzo de 2004? Aquà en EEUU, todo el mundo lee el opuesto, no solamente por FoxNews, sino por CNN y los demás también. La mayorÃa de las agencias de la noticia, (inclusive CNN) se opusieron la querra en Iraq desde el principio.
Xrlq: SÃ, se que los medios de comunicacion americanos dicen que los españoles cambiamos nuestro voto exclusivamente por el atentado de Madrid, pero ten en cuenta que la prensa americana no se ocupó del evento hasta que ocurrió el atentado mientras que la prensa española sà lo hacÃa desde el comienzo. No se puede entender un cambio de gobierno si no conoces los hechos desde el principio, algunos hechos son los siguientes:
1)Mucha gente que comenta sobre nuestras elecciones desde EE.UU dice que Aznar perdió las elecciones contra Zapatero, no fue asÃ. El canditado del Partido Popular (nuestro partido conservador) era Mariano Rajoy, un polÃtico sin mucho carisma y que no conectaba con la gente, obviamente eso es un primer dato que influye si tenemos en cuenta que Zapatero habia renovado el partido socialista y se habia convertido en un conocido lider de la oposicion con gran habilidad para el debate tambien.
2)Precisamente por ello Zapatero invitó varias veces al lider conservador (Rajoy) a celebrar un debate en la televisión durante la campaña, algo que Rajoy rechazó por temor a perderlo.. finalmente eso se volvio en su contra porque la gente dió por supuesto que temÃa perder el debate, a ello hay que sumar que su campaña electoral no fue muy efectiva.
3)Tras 4 años de gobierno el partido popular habÃa perdido mucha confianza de sus votantes e incluso llevó a cabo medidas que le perjudicaron.. sin ir mas lejos los estudiantes recordamos la LOU (Ley Orgánica de Universidades) que contó con un enorme rechazo de la comunidad universitaria, la LOCE, o hechos más graves como el accidente del Yakolev 42 en el que en torno a 60 soldados fueron transportados en un avion muy deficiente de fabricacion rusa y murieron.
Sin olvidar el memorable accidente del Prestige, un petrolero que debido a la mala gestión del gobierno acabo vertiendo toneladas de combustible en las costas del norte. O el Plan Hidrológico Nacional que contó con enorme rechazo en las Comunidades de Aragon y Cataluña al intentar transferir agua desde el norte al sur del paÃs en contra de los criterios cientificos de expertos que aconsejaban otras soluciones menos dañinas con el medio ambiente como la instalación de plantas desaladoras.
SerÃa muy larga la lista de acciones que desgastaron el gobierno del PP y tampoco deseo aburrirte con hechos de polÃtica interna española que probablemente no te interesen pero que indudablemente tienen influencia en el voto. Sin olvidar por supuesto la Guerra de Irak, decidiendo enviar tropas contra el criterio del 90% de la población española.
4)Las elecciones del 14 de marzo fueron las segundas celebradas con Zapatero como lider del partido socialista, las primeras fueron un año antes en 2003 a nivel local y autonómico, y las ganó el partido socialista sin atentados, ni bombas, al igual que las elecciones posteriores al 14 de marzo celebradas en julio de 2004 al parlamento europeo, tambien ganadas por el partido socialista.
5)La celula española de “Al-qaeda” no estava directamente vinculada con el aparato organizativo de Bin Laden en Afganistan, era un grupo de inmigrantes marroquies y de otros paises arabes que siguiendo fanáticas posturas islamistas cometieron el atentado bajo el pretexto de pertenencia a al-qaeda, algunos de ellos ya habÃan sido previamente detenidos por la policÃa, a ello se suma el hecho de que los materiales explosivos fueron proporcionados por un grupo de españoles precisamente en mi provincia, una red que vendÃa explosivos a ese y otros grupos (se sospecha que tambien a ETA).
6)En otros lugares he llegado incluso a leer que el partido socialista es un partido marxista, no, los partidos socialistas en europa hace mucho que no son marxistas, el PSOE no lo es como tampoco lo son el partido laborista de Blair, el SPD del canciller aleman, o los multiples partidos social-democratas que gobiernan en diferentes estados europeos.
7)Conocemos los problemas de las sociedades arabes e islamicas muy bien y como actuar en esos casos, no en vano, son nuestros vecinos e incluso tenemos a mas de un millon de inmigrantes ilegales que vienen de esos paises, no hay duda del gran reto de occidente para convatir los movimientos religiosos fundamentalistas que se dan en esos paÃses y que lavan el cerebro de la gente.
8)En España no vemos al pueblo americano ni por supuesto a sus valores (que compartimos) como enemigos, el hecho de que en la actualidad alguna de las polÃticas que el presidente Bush lleve a cabo no coincidan con las que nuestro gobierno lleva a cabo en el plano social o itnernacional no quiere decir que (como he leÃdo) los españoles odiemos a los americanos o nada parecido, sabemos muy bien el lado en el que debemos estar y de hecho estamos… por ejemplo un gobierno socialista apoyo en 1991 la primera guerra del golfo enviando soldados, y en la actualidad aunque se olvida de nuevo por parte de la prensa americana hay muchos soldados españoles ayudando a los soldados americanos en Afganistan.
9)Por supuesto, tras decadas luchando contra el terrorismo no somos tan estupidos como para pensar que con un cambio de gobierno España va a dejar de ser objetivo de ataques terroristas, algo que por desgracia tampoco puede decirse en Estados Unidos, en mi opinion y en la de la mayorÃa de los españoles en la lucha contra el terrorismo solo tiene efecto una acertada polÃtica antiterrorista con medidas policiales eficientes, cooperacion internacional y una optima utilización de los servicios secretos y demas elementos del gobierno.
Sobre el asunto de las encuestas indicando que un 60% de españoles deseaban un cambio de gobierno, recuerdo haberlo escuchado en la radio, en concreto en la emisora cadena ser http://www.cadenaser.com, de todas formas te dejo un link con las portadas del periodico de mayor tirada en españa para que veas como los votos estaban disputados y no tan claros como algunos dicen.
http://www.elpais.es/archivo/hemeroteca.html?ed=diario&day=10&month=03&year=2004&cals=0
Finalmente, te felicito por tu estupendo español!, mi ingles es bastante malo.. es lo que aprendi en la escuela, asi que perdona que no escribiese bien en ingles.
___
Xrlq: I know in US media its said that but before the bombing our media was talking about the election and US media wasnt focused, you have to know facts from first moment to understand what happened, i will tell you some facts.
1) Some people in USA thinks that Aznar lost the election, he didnt, the candidate of the conservative party (partido popular) was Mariano Rajoy, he wasnt very popular between people while Zapatero was for years.
2) The conservative candidate did a bad campaign and Zapatero asked him to make debate, Rajoy refused because he knew he would lost the debate, it helped Zapatero.
3) After 4 years of rule with absolute majority of seats many of policies of our conservatives became really impopular, we students remember the “LOU” a law of universities that didnt like almost anybody of students, deans, etc, same with a new law of education called “LOCE”, same with an accident of soldiers that we had helping you (and we still have with Zapatero) in Afganistan.. about 60 soldiers died because the Aznar goverment rented a Yak-42 russian plane, something crazy but truth.
A disaster of a ship called prestige didnt help the Aznar goverment to be very popular before elections, do you remember exon valdez in Alaska? we had something like that because our authorities refused to repair a ship full of oil, our nothern coast got black.
The conservative party also lost a lot of suppot in the regions of Aragon and Catalonia because “Plan Hidrologico Nacional” a plant to transfer water from the northern rivers of spain to southern areas that endangered the enviroment while experts asked for other solutions.
I dont want to get it boring for you with many internal issues of spanish policy that made many people to wish a change, but there were many others of course… including going war to iraq against 90% of the people.
4)This was the second election with Zapatero as leader of socialists, the first was in 2003 in the local councils and Autonomous Communities (something like the states in a federal country) and in the winner were the socialist with no bombings.
5)The spanish cell of al-qaeda wasnt coordinated with bin laden’s stuff, they were a group of morrocans islamists. Explosives were provided to them here in my province by a group of spanish who we suspect also sold explosives to basque group ETA.
6)I’ve read socialist party of spain is a marxist country, no… is not a marxist country, as tony blair labour party, schoreder SPD or many other socialdemocratic countries that currently are goverment in europe arent.
7)We know arabs very good, in fact they are our neighbours and we have 1 million of them as illegal inmigrants here, the fanatic views of islam of some of them goes further than any goverment decision and wash brain of their people.
8)We dont see the american people or its president as an evil or enemy as ive read in some forums, althougt we can share or not its conservative policies, its way to fight against bin laden, or its way to help Al-qaeda to get more and more members to this cause in the islamic world (eg: Iraq new terrorists killing your soldiers everyday), we know very good the side we have to stay and fight, thats why this goverment and as previous one is helping to prevent new Al-qaeda cells to enter in USA, stay with USA with even more spanish soldiers in Afganistan (something that your media also forgets), or unifies our police database with FBI to share information about terrorists.
9)We are not stupid to think that if our goverment retires from irak (because it was what the socialist party promised *before* bombings when they entered in goverment, we wont have more acts of terrorism… of course we are target of future attacks of terrorists as you are too, only police and intelligent actions help to prevent terrorist attacks, unfortunately it didnt happen with the goverment we had before march elections.
I remember to see and hear in our media those days that many of us wanted to change goverment, i remember i think that poll was in a radio network called cadena ser http://www.cadenaser.com, anyway i give you a link of our most important newspaper frontpages so you can read the coverage of those days if you are interested and think we only care bombs and not a good healthcare system, strong economy, safety, investment in R&D, education, or all those things that goverments should care and which in the end are really important in our lives everyday.
http://www.elpais.es/archivo/hemeroteca.html?ed=diario&day=10&month=03&year=2004&cals=0
Sorry for my horrible english from school, and congratulations for your wonderful spanish.
Hola Mercedes:
Que bien que tus abuelos sean de España, muchos españoles fueron a Cuba, mi bisabuelo tambien : ), yo vivo en el norte de España, en la region de Asturias junto a Galicia, mi ciudad es pequeña, se llama Gijón.. aquà puedes verla http://www.ayto-gijon.es/galeria espero que te guste. Si quieres podemos seguir en contacto cuando quieras, mi gmail es seterom@gmail.com
Un abrazo amiga
No tengo el placer de conocer a Gijon, pero me gustaria visitar el norte de Espana. Conosco el sur de Espana,(la costa del sol)y tambien Madrid, Sevilla y Barcelona. Mi abuelo es de Burgos. Conoces la ciudad?….(Perdoname,no escribo el Espanol por muchos anos! No me acuerdo donde van los accentos!)
No te preocupes, lo haces muy bien y ademas en internet siempre escribimos sin acentos e incluso mayusculas. SÃ, conozco Burgos, esta tambien en el norte aunque yo vivo en el noroeste y burgos esta hacia el centro. El norte es muy verde y lluvioso y el sur es mas seco, espero que te haya gustado tu visita y que vuelvas pronto : )
No te preocupes, lo haces muy bien y ademas en internet siempre escribimos sin acentos e incluso mayusculas. SÃ, conozco Burgos, esta tambien en el norte aunque yo vivo en el noroeste y burgos esta hacia el centro. El norte es muy verde y lluvioso y el sur es mas seco, espero que te haya gustado tu visita y que vuelvas pronto : )
In 30 years, we won’t be having this conversation. Here’s an idea: let’s move on.
CUBA, I REMEMBER YOU/CUBA, TE RECUERDO
By OSCAR M. RAMÃREZ-ORBEA, PH.D.
**Cuba, I Remember You is a book about family, love, relationships, and survival in difficult circumstances that all readers will find to be a wonderful reading experience.
Bettie Corbin Tucker
For IP Book Reviewers
Independent Professional Reviewers
See more about the book at:
http://cubairememberyou.zoomshare.com/
CUBA, I REMEMBER YOU/CUBA, TE RECUERDO
A collection of 14 short stories, all in Spanish and English, based on the author’s experiences of childhood before and after the Communist revolution. Includes Appendix for educators wishing to use the book in Spanish or English foreign language classes. Lots of nostalgia for those who knew Cuba in the 50’s and 60’s and plenty of humor for readers in general. Includes also many period family photographs that illustrate the stories and bring them vividly to life!
About the Author
Dr. Oscar M. RamÃrez-Orbea, was born in Camagüey, Cuba, in 1955. He emigrated with his family to the US in 1966, after completing elementary school in his home country. He longs one day to return to his native city of Camagüey and to all the fond memories it holds for him. CUBA, I REMEMBER YOU/CUBA, TE RECUERDO is Dr. RamÃrez’s first narrative work. More
Available now from Airleaf Publishing (www.airleaf.com) or call today to order your copy at 1-800-342–6068.
Product Details
Paperback: 392 pages
Publisher: Airleaf Publishing; 1st edition (January 10, 2006)
Language: English, Spanish
ISBN: 1594539553
By the same author:
Cuba, Between History and Legend
A collection of short stories based on Cuban legends and unusual histories, all told in thoroughly original and creative ways. All stories are narrated in English and Spanish on facing pages. Includes also substantial background information on the actual events on which the stories are based, as well as references for follow-up reading, and historical illustrations for all the stories. For brief descriptions of the stories, go to http://www.cubairememberyou.zoomshare.com On the market by year’s end. Cuba … like you’ve never read it before!
Por el mismo autor:
Cuba, Entre la Historia y la Leyenda
Una colección de cuentos cortos basados en leyendas cubanas y en eventos insólitos de la historia de Cuba, todos narrados en un estilo originalÃsimo y de gran fantasÃa. Se narran todos los cuentos en inglés y en español, en páginas opuestas. Incluye considerable información adicional sobre el fondo histórico de cada cuento, al igual que sugerencias para otras lecturas sobre la misma temática, y se incluyen ilustraciones históricas de cada uno de los cuentos. Para leer breves descripciones de cada cuento, favor de dirgirse a http://www.cubairememberyou.zoomshare.com En venta hacia finales del año. Cuba ¡como nunca te la imaginaste!