spit
However, Monmouth Tory MP David Davies said: ‘I fail to see why the Queen needs to make a special statement on this country’s 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
href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2995154/posts?page=1
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.
spit
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.
Please don’t advertise your ignorance. This is government policy not the queen’s. She is only allowed to rubberstamp what her government decides.
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.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21732545
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.”
snip
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.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/queen-sign-equal-rights-charter-233256404.html#01r3deq
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.
Well, they have turned the UK over to the muzzies, they might as well add the homos to that list.
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.”
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.
Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
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.