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
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.

USAlover
Salt Lake City, UT

"must opt in" is a fun oxymoron.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@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. ;-)

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

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 parents.

Bob K
porland, OR

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.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

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 Thomas Moore.

postaledith
Freeland, WA

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 California.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@ 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 change constantly.

sharrona
layton, UT

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 Paul

Contrarius, 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,

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

@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. ;-)

JanSan
Pocatello, ID

Ranch hand
YES... He is!

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

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.

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

@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?

to comment

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