Skip to comments.Gay marriage clears the House of Lords (UK)
Posted on 07/15/2013 11:48:45 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Gay marriage is set to become law after clearing the House of Lords.
The Queen is expected to be asked to give her approval to the Billone of the most radical pieces of social legislation of her reignby the end of this week.
It opens the way for the first legally-recognized same-sex weddings to take place in England and Wales by next summer and brings the centuries-old understanding of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman to an end.
Baroness Stowell, the Government spokesman who steered the bill through the Lords, told a chamber packed with peers wearing pink carnations, that it was an historic achievement. But opponents accused the Government of using a parliamentary bulldozer to speed the change through.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
And here is the sound of the UK being flushed down the toilet...
they have chosen the toilet so many times...
Isn’t the House of Lords the one that is filled with inbred royalists who do all manner of kinky crap????
Or am I mistaking them for the royal family?
I’m beginning to think Islamic conquest of Britain would improve the place.
This is a symptom of same. Setup for it becoming another Iran or Egypt. No, not an improvement.
Wonder where the world is headed? Doesn't look good for the West. For moral bearings, it appears that the east may be where the next great move of God occurs.
***And the Queen is directly responsible to God, too.***
QE is the titular head of the Church of England and ‘defender of the faith’.
Wonder if she will take a stand. Gay marriage in the monarchy would certainly end the Royal lineage.
****Baroness Stowell, the Government spokesman****
A she/he already??? LOL!!!
I suppose this means the poofters will retire the Tower of London steel rod that they would heat until white-hot and thrust up the bum of gays and traitors, way back when.
Now they, uh, knight them.
No, if it was, this Bill might actually be delayed.
Tony Blair 'reformed' the House of Lords by removing nearly all of the hereditary peers from it. While this may certainly be regarded as desirable on the grounds of democracy, as the idea of people holding political power purely on the basis of their ancestry is rather outdated and anti-democratic, the hereditary Peers overwhelmingly tended to be conservative, with a high proportion of those raised within a traditional Christian background.
The removal of most of the hereditary Peers, meant the House of Lords has become dominated by the Life Peers - people who made Lords on the recommendation of the government of the day for the term of their own life, and who will not hand on any title to their children. These are, to a great extent, chosen by the Prime Minister of the day, and thus a government now has the ability to stack the House of Lords to some extent to help them get their legislation through, and make things more difficult for their opponents for decades to come. While many Life Peers are people who have served Britain well and deserve the accolades and honours that come with that, it's profoundly changed the nature of the House of Lords. More Members of the House of Lords are now Labour (217) than Conservative (209). Liberal Democrat Lords (89) still give the current government more overall Lords than Labor, but as there are about 230 Lords who either affiliate with a minor party, or do not affiliate, that means that the House has changed greatly in political structure since before the Hereditary Peers were removed. In 1999, when the Hereditary Peers were expelled by laws passed by the Blair government about 3% of the Hereditary Peers were Labour, and about 60% were Conservatives. If they were still in the House, the House would be solidly Conservative - that doesn't necessarily mean the Bill would be delayed (and the Lords can only delay Bills) because many British Conservatives are supporting it, but it would have increased the chances.
The Queen can’t block it. It’s not a Constitutional issue, nor one that engages the Reserve Powers, so she has no grounds to do so. The Queen is a Constitutional Monarch, and Parliament has primacy under that Constitution - the Queen can only legitimately refuse assent to a law that exceeds Parliamentary authority.
There are 26 Church of England Bishops who sit in the House of Lords as the Lords Spiritual (other Lords are the Lords Temporal), and it is their role, if they see fit, to try and represent the Church, of which the Queen is Supreme Governor, in the Parliament. They do get to vote, but they represent only 4% of the current Chamber. And they don’t vote very often (they did vote to assist in stopping a Euthanasia Bill from passing the Lords in 2006).
The Queen has no choice but to sign any bill that passes the Commons and the Lords. It has been that way since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The only time a monarch has ever vetoed a bill since then has been in 1708 when Queen Anne refused to sign a bill creating a Scottish Militia, and she only did so because the Government instructed her to.
The gay is seeping over the Channel from Paree.
There are approximately 730 Lords Temporal at the moment. This includes about 640 Life Peers (people created Barons for the term of their own life, who will not pass on any title to their children) and 92 Hereditary Peers of varying rank from Baron to Duke, out of the approximately 800 Hereditary Peers remaining. Most Hereditary Peers were expelled from the House of Lords in 1999 under the reforms of the Blair government, but the terms of those reforms allowed the Hereditary Peers to elect 90 of their number to remain, pending further reforms that may occur in the future. Two Hereditary Peers, the Earl Marshal (Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk) and the Lord Great Chamberlain (David Cholmondeley, 7th Marquess of Cholmondeley) retain their positions because of the Hereditary Offices they hold (the Duke of Norfolk has always been the Earl Marshal since 1672, and even before that all the way back until 1397, the Duke of Norfolk most often held the position), the position of Lord Great Chamberlain is a lot more complicated but is normally the Marquess of Cholmondeley) which are considered necessary to the administration of the Monarchy and have ceremonial duties to carry out in the House of Lords.
There are 26 Lords Spiritual (actually 25 right at the moment as the office of Bishop of Durham is temporarily vacant) who are Church of England Bishops and Archbishops. By convention, in many cases, only one of them votes on an issue (by a roster system), but they are all permitted to vote and on 'moral issues' multiple Lords Spiritual may vote at once (often on different sides).
Your picture didn’t load for me the first time, so I didn’t realise you were making a joke.
The Doctor is not a Lord Temporal, but he was, of course, knighted by Queen Victoria, as Sir Doctor of Tardis - the ‘of Tardis’ would actually imply he might be a Baronet.
That’s okay. Wasn’t much of a joke. ;)
And we just know that 90 year old Queen Elizabeth believes in queer “marriage”. Shit. Until she opens her mouth and gives a press conference saying she has “evolved” I will never in a million years believe this 90 year old women believes in fag “marriage”. And she doe not make the law anyway. England flushed themselves down the toilet bowel when Henry the 8th
started his own religion.
Actually, it is a constitutional issue. Under the British constitution, one of the monarch's titles is Fidei Defensor, defender of the faith. Moreover, even though bishops of the C of E sit in the House of Lords, Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Church, superior to the Archbishop of Canterbury. If she were to assent to this bill, it would fly in the face of 2000 years of Christian doctrine. So the question is, will she uphold her royal oath to God or not?
No, it is not. It has nothing to do with any element of the British constitution.
Under the British constitution, one of the monarch's titles is Fidei Defensor, defender of the faith.
While Defender of the Faith is one of the Monarch's titles, the titles of the Monarch are not part of the constitution. They are considered a 'style' which can be changed at will by Parliament (Her Majesty's current style is set by the Royal Titles Act 1953, and renders the style only in English, so Fidei Defensor is not strictly part of it, but a translation). It's not part of the constitutional law.
Moreover, even though bishops of the C of E sit in the House of Lords, Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Church, superior to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
She is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, certainly, but she is not Head of the Church of England - in fact the term Supreme Governor was deliberately chosen in order to avoid the use of the term Supreme Head (Henry VIII and Edward VI had used the term Supreme Head, and it had caused considerable issues, so Elizabeth I had it changed to Supreme Governor).
The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England of 1563 set out precisely what the Monarch's powers were and were not in terms of their powers over the Church. The 37th Article makes it clear that all powers of the Monarch in regards to running of the Church, and to its influence over government are delegated to the Ecclesiastical or Temporal authorities - Parliament in other words.
If she were to assent to this bill, it would fly in the face of 2000 years of Christian doctrine. So the question is, will she uphold her royal oath to God or not?
Yes, she will. Which is why she cannot intervene - because of this section of the Coronation Oath that she swore: And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them.
By law, and by the Articles, the right to make decisions on laws that go through Parliament is a privilege of the Bishops of England - the Lords Spiritual. She swore to preserve that right - not to overrule it.
That is the Oath she swore.
The Queen is not a tyrant. She does not get to overrule Parliament, except on a very precise set of issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.