One of the best political books of the past 50 years. How excruciating to think that just this one person, had he been allowed to serve, could have turned the ship from its present disastrous beeline for the iceberg.
Posted on 07/17/2013 6:37:49 AM PDT by informavoracious
LONDON — Gay marriage becomes legal in Britain as Queen Elizabeth II gives royal approval.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtonpost.com ...
Legalizing gay marriage while simultaneously turning over swaths of your nation to Islamists who are violently opposed to homosexuality. Yeah, that’s going to work out well in the future.
Royal assent does not imply personal approval. The monarch is apolitical, and constitutionally required to give assent to laws passed by Parliament.
Assuming she objects, the Queen probably made that known to the prime minister prior to the bill being read in Parliament. She has the right to advise him. But once it passes the legislature and the House of Lords, she has no further say.
Will some Royal couple one day be King/King or Queen/Queen? Sorry I asked.
Politically speaking, Northern Ireland does not have the wild liberalism of England. So, I assume Northern Ireland is still straight, hope so.
Wales and Scotland are probably going along with it, unfortunately. Scotland is going to have a vote from what I understand to leave the United Kingdom.
“...That ship sailed a long time ago. ...”
Yeah, round about the time a document was delivered to a certain mad monarch that started with the words:
“When In The Course Of Human Events, it becomes necessary to....”
I thought Prince Charles said he wants to marry a tampon.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
Thanks for sharing the relevancy of Bork's book (I read his "Tempting of America, the Political Seduction of the Law" which helped inspire me to go after a law degree.)
I also see these truths prophesied in the Bible:
Chapters 2 & 3 of the Book of Revelation lay out the seven ages of what would be the next 2000 years. I believe the Philadelphia age (Philadelphia church age) ended around 1900. In the period before 1900 America and in a sense the whole world began to go "from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance."
Since around 1900, I believe have we entered into (and are now in) the seventh and last age, the Laodicean age. This is the age where people say to themselves "I am rich and my wealth is increasing and have need of nothing" (Rev 3:17). It is truly astonishing the industrial and technological advances we have seen in the last 100 years, never before seen in the history of the world. We can do and have things now that people even 200 years ago could hardly even dream about. You can basically go anywhere and do anything you want to in air conditioned comfort.
This is the period where people have gone "from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." Likewise, Jesus in response to these people's thoughts says, "[You] do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked" (Rev 3:17) and then in love and grace counsels them what to do.
Though by which The United States were founded.
I agree. She had an opportunity to show leadership in vetoing it, or whatever the analogous term is in GB. I was an admirer of hers—until today.
When you consider how many Royals and members of the upper class swing both ways, it’s not a big surprise.
You can bet your azz the people didn’t vote on this abomination. And if a 90 year old queen said she approves of sodomite “marriage”, she has altimiers and does not have her normal mind. No way in hell a woman this old would think it perfectly normal to destroy marriage.
Did she have any choice?
I think the British constitution says the monarch must approve all laws passed by Parliament...Otherwise they get Ye Olde Charles The First treatment and lose their heads.
Anyhow, Charlie “The Red Prince” would have approved before the old Queen’s body was cold.
I thind she did it to piss off the Muzzies.
Bump for later disgust.
Sorry. She doesn't have a veto. The monarchy is ceremonial; the crown ceded its executive power to Parliament ages ago. Passing laws is Parliament's prerogative. The Queen's duty is to formally ratify it.
In theory, the Queen (and her viceroys, the various Governors-General of the Commonwealth countries like Canada) have rather broad reserve powers that they can exercise in times of emergency or constitutional crisis. This includes the ability to refuse to give royal assent. In practice, these powers are almost never exercised, and when they are, it's usually very controversial.
Thank you. I see their story was posted about 45 minutes after my search. This is a sad day. I am disappointed in Liz. She may not have any political power, but she certainly has influence. I imagine she wished to avoid having her own children's messy divorces held up for ridicule again. So disappointed in her and Charles for that mess.
Incorrect. The monarch still holds executive power within Britain; it is not ceded whatsoever. Withholding royal assent is the equivalent of a veto. The parliament cannot stop the monarch from doing that, and the monarch is absolutely not duty-bound to rubber-stamp any and all legislation that comes out of the parliament.
One of the best political books of the past 50 years. How excruciating to think that just this one person, had he been allowed to serve, could have turned the ship from its present disastrous beeline for the iceberg.
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.