Queen Elizabeth gives official OK to same-sex marriages in Britain

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    July 22, 2013 4:41 p.m.

    @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?

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    July 22, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    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.

  • JanSan Pocatello, ID
    July 21, 2013 9:48 p.m.

    Ranch hand
    YES... He is!

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    July 20, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    @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. ;-)

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 19, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    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,

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 19, 2013 2:43 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    July 19, 2013 5:02 a.m.

    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.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    July 18, 2013 5:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    July 18, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 18, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 18, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    @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. ;-)

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    "must opt in" is a fun oxymoron.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    "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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 18, 2013 12:02 p.m.


    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).

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 18, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    @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!

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 18, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    @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.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    July 18, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    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 Kaysville, UT
    July 18, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    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.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    July 18, 2013 8:53 a.m.

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

  • Ironmomo Ogden, Utah
    July 18, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 18, 2013 6:45 a.m.


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

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 18, 2013 5:21 a.m.

    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.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    July 17, 2013 11:11 p.m.

    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!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 17, 2013 10:49 p.m.

    This world is ripening.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 17, 2013 8:34 p.m.


    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.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    July 17, 2013 7:42 p.m.

    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.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    July 17, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    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.

    July 17, 2013 5:00 p.m.

    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?

  • Shushannah Kendal, Cumbria
    July 17, 2013 4:26 p.m.

    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.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    July 17, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    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!

  • hermounts Pleasanton, CA
    July 17, 2013 4:10 p.m.

    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?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 17, 2013 3:12 p.m.

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