Skip to comments.Queen fights for gay rights: Monarch makes historic pledge
Posted on 03/10/2013 4:04:25 AM PDT by haffast
The Queen will tomorrow back an historic pledge to promote gay rights and gender equality in one of the most controversial acts of her reign.
In a live television broadcast, she will sign a new charter designed to stamp out discrimination against homosexual people and promote the empowerment of women a key part of a new drive to boost human rights and living standards across the Commonwealth.
The charter, dubbed a 21st Century Commonwealth Magna Carta declares: We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.
The other grounds is intended to refer to sexuality but specific reference to gays and lesbians was omitted in deference to Commonwealth countries with draconian anti-gay laws.
The charters Gender Rights vow says: We recognise that gender equality and womens empowerment are essential components of human development and basic human rights. The advancement of womens rights and the education of girls are critical preconditions for effective and sustainable development.
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay and lesbian rights group Stonewall, said the Queen who he called a feminist icon had taken an historic step forward on gay rights. He said: This is the first time that the Queen has publicly acknowledged the importance of the six per cent of her subjects who are gay. Some of the worst persecution of gay people in the world takes place in Commonwealth countries as a result of the British Empire.
And he said her support for womens empowerment led to the inescapable conclusion that she supports equal rights of accession.
The Palace has finally caught up with public opinion, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
However, Monmouth Tory MP David Davies said: I fail to see why the Queen needs to make a special statement on this countrys opposition to discrimination against gays and women. It is a statement of the blindingly obvious."
Viewpoint: What if women ruled the world?
BBC News Magazine ^ | 3-7-2013 | Dee Dee Myers
The love of nation and self is more powerful than the insane followers of a goat f'ing, child raping satanist.
Queers would soon STFU and quietly disappear back into THEIR bungholes (pun intended)
Earlier posting of similar article from the Telegraph.
Searched "queen" didn't see it.
It has to be something in the air.
For thousands of years the world has recognised queers as an abomination, and all of a sudden we are changing to enable them.
God must be setting a trap. If He is we are falling into it.
IMHO I think it’s too late. Not giving up, just aware of the supernatural forces behind the movement and the fallen Adamic nature of Man. Christian apostacy is allowing it.
Here are a few notes from some reading I did in the past:
Islam in the United Kingdom
“Islam has been present in the United Kingdom since its formation in 1707, though it was not legally recognised until the Trinitarian Act in 1812. Today it is the second largest religion in the country with estimates suggesting that by 2010 the total Muslim population had reached 2.869 million.”
Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813
“It has been regarded as legalising the practice of *Islam*, which does not have a trinitarian doctrine; however as the Blasphemy Act applied only to those educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, the amending Act would in theory have applied to converts only to Islam and even then would not have allowed them *to deny the truth of the Christian religion.*”
“The Blasphemy Act was repealed in 1967, implicitly taking the Doctrine of the Trinity Act with it.”
Blasphemy Act 1697
“The Blasphemy Act 1697 (9 Will 3 c 35) was an Act of the Parliament of England. It made it an offence for any person, educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, by writing, preaching, teaching or advised speaking, *to deny the Holy Trinity*, to claim there is more than one god, to deny “the truth” of Christianity and to deny the Bible as divine authority.”
“The first offence resulted in being rendered incapable of holding any office or place of trust. The second offence resulted in being rendered incapable of bringing any action, of being guardian or executor, or of taking a legacy or deed of gift, and three years imprisonment without bail.”
“The Act was directed against apostates at the beginning of the *deist* movement in England, particularly after the 1696 publication of John Toland’s book Christianity Not Mysterious.”
History of Islam in the UK
Islam in the United Kingdom (Or the The True Cost of Cheap Labor - take note, present day America. You’d think we’d have learned our lesson from our history of slavery. - haffast)
“After the war, Britain was in the process of rebuilding its devastated economy and infrastructure, and so it benefited profoundly from this source of cheap labor.”
The Islamification of Britain: record numbers embrace Muslim faith
“The number of Britons converting to Islam has doubled in 10 years. Why? “
Growth Of Islam (surprised?)
FOX TV News - Islam World Most Growing Religion 2010
BBC NEWS : Islam is the fastest-growing religion in London
What will happen if Islam keeps growing?
Islamization of Paris
The *apostacy* of most post-modern “Christians” has been the *accessory* to the recent exponentially rapid growth of Islam across the world.
I will point out two things:
(1) The speech that is being reported does not refer to gays at all - it specifically refers to discrimination based on:
“gender, race, colour, creed, political belief” and that’s all. It also talks about “or other grounds” which some people are saying refers to sexuality - and perhaps it does, but when some grounds are being stated explicitly and some aren’t, headlines and articles that act as if the non specific category is the important one seem remarkably misleading.
(2) As a Constitutional Monarch, Her Majesty makes the speeches her government wants her to make on the subjects her government wants her to make them. She does not make speeches on political issues based on her own beliefs, but in her role as a Constitutional Monarch in a country with a government based on representative government. Even if she did make a speech explicitly supporting gay rights, it would say nothing about her own beliefs - only about the beliefs of her government. She has no power or right to speak against the policies of her government except in the very particular situation of a government attempting to act unconstitutionally. This speech is not her speech. It’s written by politicians for her to present their political position.
People need to understand how a constitutional monarchy works - the Queen is not an absolute ruler with the power to set policy, or even present it publically.
“We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination”
Then she might as well abdicate the throne because monarchy is the ancient form of discrimination that led to all others.
Not smart. .
The Queen and I are the same age. From afar, I’ve been mostly proud of her for a lot of years dating from WW2.
No more. Queen and I part ways at this point.
Yes, and now not-so-Great Britain is tangling with an ever growing muslim threat within her own borders. Oh well, as Britain goes, so goes the monarchy. Tra la, your Highness. It was an interesting history while it lasted. It must be senility setting in on the old bird, eh?
Please note that nothing in the statement mentions homosexuality. This is another example of the press twisting things to look the way they want it.
And as was noted in a previous post, the queen has little or no input in policy. She does and signs what she is expected to.
On political matters, the Queen is the servant of Parliament, unless exercising the reserve powers which would only be done to address a constitutional crisis.
The article is also, in my view, misrepresenting the speech which does not, in fact, refer to sexuality even once. It refers to racial discrimination, sex discrimination, skin colour, religion, and political beliefs explicitly. It does mention sexuality at all.
Please don’t advertise your ignorance. This is government policy not the queen’s. She is only allowed to rubberstamp what her government decides.
Not surprised - it’s a bloody “queen” who’s pushing homosexual perversion.
” It would be unconstitutional for her not to do so.”
LOL. Then the monarchy has clearly outlived its usefulness. The queen will suposedly use socialist code words like “gender equality” and “women empowerment”. Everyone knows what she’s talking about and I doubt that this is all a consensus in the “commonwealth”.
“Please note that nothing in the statement mentions homosexuality.”
What statement? The text of the speech hasn’t been released.
This article is based on palace sources and multiple media outlets are reporting the same thing.
No one can force the queen to make any statements. This argument about constitutionality is utter BS.
Queen to sign equal rights charter
10 March 2013 Last updated at 04:54 ET
“Backed by 54 nations, it also covers democracy, rule of law, international security and freedom of expression.”
“Prime Minister David Cameron has in the past pressed Commonwealth leaders on the issue of gay rights.”
“A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “At a Commonwealth event on Monday, the Queen will sign a charter agreed upon by the 54 members of the Commonwealth.”
“The Queen, as in all matters, is apolitical but is signing the document in her capacity as head of the Commonwealth.”
“Sources close to the royal household said the Queen would not give her personal endorsement to the charter because of her apolitical status.”
Queen to sign equal rights charter
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said tonight: “At a Commonwealth event on Monday, the Queen will sign a charter agreed upon by the 54 members of the Commonwealth. The Queen, as in all matters, is apolitical but is signing the document in her capacity as head of the Commonwealth.”
The Government is introducing new legislation ending discrimination against women in the line of succession to the British throne. The measure will mean that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first baby can succeed to the throne, regardless of whether the child is a girl or a boy.
Ministers are set to introduce the new law after receiving consent from all the Commonwealth realms to push ahead with the change. The Succession to the Crown Bill will also end the ban on anyone in the line of succession marrying a Roman Catholic.
The Queen may approve, but God does not. He has the final say that He makes clear in Revelation 22:15. People who are sexually immoral cannot inherit eternal life.
England, where every king can aspire to be a queen.
Well, they have turned the UK over to the muzzies, they might as well add the homos to that list.
This is so disappointing. For decades we’ve watched as Prince Charles degenerated into a certified loonie with weird views even while his Mum stood as a rock of steadfastness and respectability while all about her things was going absolutely crackers.
Not any more. At least the crew of the Titanic attempted to dodge the iceberg, not deliberately steer the ship toward its doom.
Chaucer: “For if the gold rust, what shall the iron do?”
May God have mercy on her soul and convince her of the damage she is doing to her Kingdom.
I wouldn’t want to face my Creator at a judgement bar having given aid and comfort to a group of people practicing what God has proclaimed an Abomination.
I really doubt that the Queen is intentionally pushing for homosexuality and social decline.
She has been at this for a really long time and comes from a different era.
I bet she’s glad to be in the late 80s and won’t have to witness the final collapse of what was once one of the most intellectually advanced countries in modern history. All the young idiots will continue their business.
I don’t accept the concept of monarchy. There is no “queen.”
Maybe these knights too?:
Sirs Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart
Ian McKellen & Patrick Stewart to Reunite in Waiting For Godot & No Mans Land on Broadway
News By Lindsay Champion January 24, 2013 - 3:32PM
"Former X-Men co-stars Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart are teaming up to star in Harold Pinters No Mans Land and Samuel Becketts Waiting For Godot on Broadway this fall. Both productions will be directed by Sean Mathias."
Sean Mathias is McKellen's lover of eight years.
Sir Patrick Stewart calls on one million men to promise an end to violence against women
By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News | The Lookout Fri, Mar 8, 2013
"Scotty, I need warp speed in three minutes or we're all dead!"
- line from Star Trek
This is shocking. I’ve always admired Elizabeth, and I’ve defended her on this forum.
No more; I’m done. How sad and how disgusting.
RE: Gay Rights
What exactly does that very vague word mean?
Gays already have rights — CIVIL RIGHTS, like everybody else.
Does the Queen include the right to redefine marriage so that every religious institution that cannot go against their doctrine will have to discard it to recognize the homosexual’s “right” (note the quotes) to marry?
For instance, if a British Catholic views matrimony as a Holy Sacrament instituted by God ONLY RESERVED FOR THE UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, is he violating the Queen’s principle of Gay Rights?
Why not say so DIRECTLY Elizabeth?
Nut bags are simply released from therapy and this is what we get. Deviance promoted by homowod, the old media, and sex offenders. What causes homosexuality? There is not a shred of scientific evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is genetic. All such studies that once purported to support that idea of a gay gene have been discredited. Even the weak-minded can understand that if it was genetic, identical twins would always both be gay 100% of the time. On average if one is, only about 50% of the time the other is also gay. Unfortunately, common sense is lost on homosexuals who are simply obsessed with their illness. There are various factors, however, that are associated with being gay. These include: detached parenting (especially from the father), childhood sexual abuse by adult homosexuals, and accusations at a young age about lack of athletic ability in a boy. Cultural factors also play a role; homosexual rates increase in societies that accept the practice. Can homosexuals change? Yes. The cure rate is about the same as alcoholism. Depending on the study, the success rate of those wanting to leave the lifestyle is between 30% and 70%. Even though the success rate is not 100%, like other difficult pathologies, we should not assume that therapy is ineffective.
Wonderful! I’m assuming this “charter” rescinds the Act of Settlement (1701) and the Roman Catholic Relief Act (1829) which bar Catholics from the throne and the premiership respectively.
Well that just proves inbreeding and the rest we already read in the history books.
No, what we are witnessing is the unfolding of Romans 1:22-1:25:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
"Professing themselves to be wise" per verse 22: "You Christians are outdated. You need to get with the times! Accept that life has no meaning and man is nothing more than a glorified monkey! There is no basis for right and wrong since we're just and accident. Therefore, who are you to judge?"
In verse 23 we see reference to the idolatry of our day, whether it be through sports teams (representing birds and beasts, "ball" has replaced "Baal"), man (like Obama, who is worshipped as a sort of god by many), or Gaia.
Verse 24 should be pretty self-explanatory.
In Verse 25 we see a reference to the practice of calling good evil and evil good. It is evil, according to the spirit of the age, to warn a friend who is destroying himself with a homosexual life and good to affirm his destructive behavior.
There really is nothing new under the sun, my friends. Though knowledge has increased, wisdom has not. We are not "more advanced" than people of any other age. We are on the threshing floor, and God is separating His wheat from the chaff.
These pro-homo people are all asking for the wrath of God to come upon humanity. They are sickos.
Fortunately I searched to see if someone responded this Bible verse. Fits today to a “T”.
I suppose this means they found out Kate’s having a girl.
Clearly, the queen’s recent illness deleteriously affected her brain. Bob
A queen who plays the queen.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IloIoGj5Mj0
Now we know and finally have proof that after all these years the Queen is ACTUALLY a comedian named Scott Thompson!!!
“Queen fights for queens; monarch makes butterfly-brained faux-pas.”
Kind of funny. A monarch opposed to discrimination. Lol
There must be an as-yet-undiscovered queer in the royal family. The “queen” has to lay a little ground work before the coming out party. While Lizzie has done some good work over the years, particularly her time during WW II, she’s still the product of generations/ centuries of inbred royalty. That’s pretty evident with His Charlesness. Noting but a little out-breeding can save this bunch anyway.
It is still illegal for a Catholic to sit on the throne of England.
It won’t be quick. It won’t be efficient. It’ll be sort of like one of the several civil wars that have rocked the British isles, I think. Probably it’ll most resemble War of the Roses, with be-headings, never-ending uncertainty, and everything. Hope the right side wins. Stiff upper lips vs. feral snarls. Hard not to root for the lips, but the leftists will manage it.
just abolish the monarchy and get it over with
When a “straight” person comes out for “gay” rights, it’s usually for a personal reason - such as a member of the family is gay. Could this be the case with Elizabeth? Is there something she wants to tell us about Charles?
William II, Richard I, Edward II, James I, William III.
I think all of them are at least suspected of having been homosexuals, although perhaps in one or another case it was just malicious rumor not based on fact.
fed upo of this crap called discrimination, these arguments for homosexuals can be sued for any kind of marriage or special rights and thus if these homsoexuals refuse to want their 9 women marriage then it;s discrimination
Too many people today acting like drama Queens and not thinking about the kids or others
could not careless what they do in their bedroom but this crap of dscrimination and freak parades as well as special rights is absurd.
If I want to marry my daughter and she said yes ten is that discrimination, if her borther wants to marry the horse is that discrimination, after all it;s all about lvoe right?
If our side actually started speaking up about this and putting these questions out and asking these homosexuals would they support polygamy then we would be able to expose their pathetic agenda but no, course not because the DC, north east elitist morans have a so called friend or family member which likes getting off with feces and asses.
As for the Queen did she state homosexuals can marry or was she really talking about Williams daughter to the throne?