Quantcast

Comments about ‘Queen Elizabeth gives official OK to same-sex marriages in Britain’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 17 2013 2:30 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Wow!! The wheels of history keep on moving forward!! Civil rights for all and respect for religious beliefs.

hermounts
Pleasanton, CA

when the story said churches "must opt in" I thought at first it meant they had no choice. Then I realized it meant they don't have to unless they opt in. But that still means individuals in those churches that opt in won't be free to exercise their individual conscience, or does it?

BYUalum
South Jordan, UT

Why succumb to so called public pressure? She has lived all these years in a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. She is about to become a great grandmother, which child was conceived by her grandson and his wife. Children need a father AND a mother in today's troubled world. I disagree with her position on the eve of this child's birth! Not a great legacy for this baby, Great Grandma Elizabeth!

Shushannah
Kendal, Cumbria

Queen Anne, who reigned in England from 1702-1714, was I believe, the last English monarch to attempt (unsuccessfully) to gainsay an Act of Parliament to which she was averse... yes, the Monarch's signature is necessary, but it is only a traditional formality, and means absolutely nothing at all, in real terms.

Allen#2
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Why wouldn't Queen Elizabeth II approve of same sex marriage when many members of the Royal Family have lived together before marriage and had elicit affairs while they were married?

Lightbearer
Brigham City, UT

Re: "Why succumb to so called public pressure? She has lived all these years in a traditional marriage between a man and a woman."

I don't know what her private views on the matter might be, but perhaps she doesn't feel that she's succumbing to public pressure. Even though her assent is a formality, maybe she believes that assenting would be the right thing to do in any case. Just because she has lived for years in a traditional marriage doesn't mean that she isn't in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. Many people who have lived for years in a traditional marriage are in favor of allowing same-sex marriage.

John20000
Cedar Hills, UT

Shortcut precedence seems risky for the future. I am against public discrimination of law abiding citizens. That said, the marriage issue is a shortcut to our well-founded legal system. For example, let's say a law is passed by some legislative body and terms in that law are understood by that body in a clear way and is why they voted for it. Then a judge comes along and changes the definition of a key term that changes how the legislative body would have voted. Let's say a law passes with the term automobile related to highway traffic. Then a judge changes the definition of automobiles to include airplanes. The legislative body never intended for airplanes to taxi along the highway, but now it is legal because the judge likes airplanes. Laws related to airplanes should pass on their own merits. They shouldn't shortcut the process and piggyback on well-defined terms.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

John2000,

Laws passed by legislatures that don't pass constitutional muster are invalid. That's central to the concept of "judicial review," which is a foundational principle of our nation.

It's what a nation functioning under "the rule of law" means.

worf
Mcallen, TX

This world is ripening.

kargirl
Sacramento, CA

The Queen, having lived all these years in a marriage that, according to all reports has been an extremely happy one, no doubt sees the wisdom and humanity in allowing all British citizens to enjoy the same opportunity as she and Prince Phillip have enjoyed. And having watched all these years the parade of history, she feels that as a leader, it is incumbent on her to show that all citizens' beliefs need consideration, not simply a handpicked minority's viewpoints. Good for the Queen!

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

Congrats to the UK!

It sounds like their church-related laws may need a bit of revamping -- for instance, I'm scratching my head on why the Church of England would be banned by law by participating in gay marriages -- but it's great to see yet another country moving further into the era of true equal rights for all.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@worf;

I bet you that it will NEVER be picked (i.e., your "god" isn't coming).

Ironmomo
Ogden, Utah

I've been waiting son long for the Queen to speak out before I formulated my own opinion...now if only the Taco Bell dog would speak out and let me know where she stands on the subject I could really put it all together.

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

The queen OKs a new law being proposed by Parliament while The Church of England is banned by law from celebrating such marriages. ???

JWB
Kaysville, UT

The Monarchy happens because they have children that are heirs. Now they will have to change their Monarchy process so it won't necessarily be a bloodline that is the key and first-born succession. I wonder what that will do when the first Queen or King chooses that lifestyle? She didn't say it didn't pertain to the Monarchs in England. The House of the Lords process will also have to change, it would appear.

no fit in SG
St.George, Utah

JWB,
Open up those dusty old history books, find a comfy place to sit, and read away.
This is not something new.
Royalty, just as in other families, has dealt with this since the beginning of time.
Looks like they have worked through it with love, understanding, and in a positive manner.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@Jwb --

" Now they will have to change their Monarchy process so it won't necessarily be a bloodline that is the key and first-born succession. "

Oh, relax. The British monarchy, not to mention all the other monarchies in the world, has been passed to non-direct-descendants many times throughout history.

In just the last coupla centuries in Britain:

Queen Anne was succeeded by her second cousin
George IV was succeeded by his younger brother
Edward VIII was succeeded by his younger brother

And yet the monarchy lived on, every time!

You can relax. This isn't something that will ever destroy the British monarchy, or any other.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@myself --

Queen Anne was succeeded by her second cousin
George IV was succeeded by his younger brother
Edward VIII was succeeded by his younger brother

-- and dang, I left out Queen Victoria -- who succeeded William IV, and was his niece!

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Contrarius;

Even the homosexual rulers of England married and had children in order to ensure the line. The monarchy has always had their mistresses (or, in that case misters).

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@JWB
"I wonder what that will do when the first Queen or King chooses that lifestyle? "

Nephews, nieces, siblings... it doesn't always go straight down the direct line.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments