³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Mark e-mailed us early this morning with a few ideas. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will on his plan for statehood that implicitly recognises Israel's right to exist.

Also, President Bush is pushing the debate again for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. There is a huge debate going on both in the US and on the .

Here are a couple of comments from that debate:

Tina Pollock in Fort Collins Colorado had this comment:

This is a decision best left to each state to decide. As usual, our president is using a diversionary ploy to divert attention from the truly important issues in this nation. It always amazes me that Republicans who profess to be "conservatives" are so eager to insert government control into our lives.
What about Iraq, Health Care, border security, global warming.... and on and on?

Michael Hall in Chipping Norton, United Kingdom had this comment:

Commonsense at last. If only our government had the moral and ethical courage to do the same as the US. Marriage is and always has been a recognition of a relationship between a man and a woman. If same sex couples want something similar call it something else rather than corrupt the historic institution of marriage like they did to the beautiful word 'gay'.

Dao Jones in Kuwait had this to say:

Why does government regulate "marriage" at all? Marriage is a personal and religious affair; the only way in which it involves government is for tax and legal purposes.
In that sense, the government really should just classify *all* marriage as "civil unions", and let peoples' personal lifestyles, religions and communities decide what a "marriage" should be.

That's just a few of more than 600 comments that have come into the debate. In addition to the usual issues of whether same-sex unions are right or wrong, there are other issues as Dao and others have pointed out. Is it government's role to define marriage? Should this be decided by individual states as Tina suggests and many states in the US have done? And is this issue more important than other issues such as education, the US budget deficit and national security? There are lots of issues.

And looking around the web, I found a couple of interesting explorations of the issues. One blog written by a man in Idaho in the United States explored the .

For a little lighter view of things, blogger Tajy of the Nightelves had this satirical roundup of why he thought permitting gay marriage was wrong. Here is number 10 on his list:

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Leave your comments here, or e-mail us.

Our inbox

As we say here on our blog and on the programme, we have a lot of ways for you to get in touch. Some of you leave comments here, and we receive an increasing number of comments in our inbox.

Here is one suggestion that we had. Bijon Sarma sent us this message:

I find little coverage over BANGLADESH in your website.
The country is now having tussles of the political parties over election.
Also you know of recent happenings due to JMB, Garments problem etc.
I request you for more coverage on these and other issues of Bangladesh.

After a quick look on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ News website, I see that Bijon is referring to protests by garment workers over low wages. They had stopped, but at the end of last week.

Last night's talk on anti-terror raids

Several e-mails came in last night after the programme about the anti-terror raids in London and Canada. Here are a few.

Jonathan Williams sent us this comment from Spain:

If the police in the UK spent less time persecuting motorists, and more time learning how to think, then one would, perhaps, feel safer. Personally, I wouldn't ask a policeman/woman directions if I was lost.

Briana Quillian sent us this comment:

I feel that it is very good that the police are trying to have a handle on terrorism before it gets any worse. Canada is too soft. By having a stronger police force, Canada will not have to experience their own 9/11. People need to remember how bad TERRORISM can get. This isn't against the Muslims, this is against terrorism. Canada should wake up and be grateful for such good protection.

Nigel Grinyer in London about the raids here:

While it is regrettable if there is any disruption to the local community in Forest Gate the real violation of human rights is innocent civilians being murdered by terrorists and there should be more sensitivity to the fact that it is less than twelve months since 50 innocent people were killed in London.

And Steve Debrou sent us this e-mail:

The intelligence came from MI5. It was ok'd by SO13, Tony Blair and the Home Secretary. The police were simply following orders. Blaming them is like criticising a factory worker for a badly designed car.