Wow!! The wheels of history keep on moving forward!! Civil rights for all and
respect for religious beliefs.
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?
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!
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
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?
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.
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.
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"
This world is ripening.
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!
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.
@worf;I bet you that it will NEVER be picked (i.e., your
"god" isn't coming).
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.
The queen OKs a new law being proposed by Parliament while The Church of England
is banned by law from celebrating such marriages. ???
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.
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.
@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 cousinGeorge IV
was succeeded by his younger brotherEdward VIII was succeeded by his
younger brotherAnd yet the monarchy lived on, every time!You can relax. This isn't something that will ever destroy the British
monarchy, or any other.
@myself --Queen Anne was succeeded by her second cousinGeorge
IV was succeeded by his younger brotherEdward VIII was succeeded by his
younger brother-- and dang, I left out Queen Victoria -- who
succeeded William IV, and was his niece!
@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).
@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.
"must opt in" is a fun oxymoron.
@RanchHand --"Even the homosexual rulers of England married and
had children in order to ensure the line. "Sure, but these days
they wouldn't have to. Even if a homosexual king decided to marry the man
he loved, he could always name a related heir to succeed him -- whether that be
brother, nephew, sister, niece, cousin, or whatever.And for those of
you who doubt that England has ever had gay rulers, look up King James I
sometime. Yes, folks, the sponsor of the King James Bible. That one. ;-)In fact, several British monarchs are commonly believed to have been gay
or bi. The list includes:William Rufus (son of William the
Conqueror)Richard the Lionheart (succeeded by his brother, another case of
non-direct transfer of the monarchy)Edward II (two of his closest
favorites at court were eventually executed for homosexuality -- he was the
first to establish colleges in Oxford and Cambridge, incidentally)Richard
II James I (he was even known by his peers as "Queen James")It's no wonder Queen Elizabeth is comfortable with the thought of
gay marriages. ;-)
In 1536, when Henry the VIII did not have a legitimate male heir, the Second
Succession Act was passed - declaring Henry's daughters Mary and Elizabeth
as illegitimate and not able to be heirs to the throne. Since there was no
legitimate heir of his body, Henry VIII would be allowed to name an heir of his
choosing.Henry's third wife bore him a son, Edward, who would
eventually inherit the throne. But before that happened, he divorced his first
wife against the express wishes of the Catholic Church, which led to the
creation of the Church of England, and beheaded his second wife. The Third Succession Act, passed in 1543, returned Mary and Elizabeth to the
line of succession.Kings and Queens are perfectly capable of
securing the succession themselves. I really don't think it is something
the rest of us need to worry about.And if they can find ways around
infertility, still-born children, death in childbirth, death in childhood, and
the gender of the child - I am sure they can work around the genders of the
Some of the comments don't follow the (easily looked up) facts:1--
The Queen does not actually approve of any legislation, it is just passed before
her and she must acceed to whatever Parliamnent does.2-- The churches of
England and Wales were specifically mentioned in the law so that they would not
opppose it. If a civil marriage equality law passed in Utah, it would
undoubtedly state that the lds church is exempted.3-- Someone raised that
"choose that lifestyle" thing again -- even the current lds doctrine
avoids calling it a choice or a lifestyle.4-- I, perhaps foolishly, wait
for more lds people to apologize for the Prop 8 campaign, which is looking more
and more like trying to hold back the tide.
Morality hasn't changed but mores have become acceptable at all levels
whether it is incest, promiscuity, or other behavior. Henry VIII was a far
different ruler than this Queen. She was not many years behind Queen Victoria
and the door is open for the Church of England to see a different light than Sir
Being a strong ally for same-sex marriage, I am thrilled about the decision the
Queen has made. I'm also thrilled that DOMA and Prop 8 was struck down in
@ JWB: Read your history. There is a well established precedent for incest and
promiscuity when it comes to monarchies.As for mores and moral -
again, read your history. Or even just read the Bible. Mores and morality
RE: Contrarius: “God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women
exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men
also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one
another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves
the due penalty for their error.” Saint PaulContrarius, above
all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the
prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its
origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they
were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21,
@sharrona --"Saint Paul"How did we get Paul
inserted into a discussion of British royalty??Yes, Sharrona, we
know that Paul didn't like homosexuality. Paul also supported slavery,
believed that women were inferior to men, told everyone that they should never
get divorced no matter what (even Jesus allowed for divorce after infidelity,
but Paul didn't), and claimed that it was better to remain single than to
marry (even though Jesus thought most people should get married).Paul was a mortal man, and fallible.As opposed to Jesus, who never
said a single word against homosexuality.In the meantime, Britain
outlawed slavery long before the US did, and was ruled by female monarchs long
before the US gave women the right to vote. They've also had legal divorce
for the common man (not just royals) since 1857, and their ratio of divorces to
marriages is in the range of 35% rather than the 50% seen in the US.And the approval or disapproval of the British royal family given to gay
marriages won't change any of it. ;-)
Ranch handYES... He is!
Yes the signature of a British "monarch" to a bill that passes the
British legislature is a mere formality, is never refused, and it has apparently
been so for more than three hundred years. This article nearly had me going
'til I realized the headline was inflammatory and ignorant. At
the same time I wished that Elizabeth 2 had made some real news and refused to
sign the law. I am pretty sure that this would be in line with her own
morality. She would at least have gone out with a bang and made some history.This would also have brought about some discussion to the fictitious
veto power of a British sovereign or else she would have brought the pretense
and obsolescence of "monarchy" into the open to those who do not yet
understand it.The British system has for over a century had no
official executive, a powerful "lower" House and a weak "upper"
House. A good substitute would be for the UK to adopt the American Constitution
since we seem to have no use for it.
@Gildas --"I am pretty sure that this would be in line with her
own morality."Why would you be sure of that?After
all, this Queen has just gotten through changing the major provision in the
British laws of succession. This spring she approved a new act that, for the
first time in British history, will allow a girl to inherit the throne as the
firstborn child, even if there is a son born later (Succession to the Crown Act
2013). And that required getting agreement from all 16 British commonwealth
countries.If the Brits were willing to actually change the laws of
succession, why do you think she'd have trouble with private citizens who
simply want to get married to the person they love?