She did no such thing.
She gave the Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament as she is constitutionally obliged to do. She does not have the power to do otherwise. The Royal Assent can only be refused on constitutional matters, and there's nothing in the recent laws that touch on British constitutional law.
No monarch has refused the Royal Assent since 1708. No monarch has even considered it since 1914 - do you think that's because they've personally agreed with every single law in the last 305 years? No, it's because the reign of Queen Anne (who was Queen in 1708) came at the beginning of the modern constitutional monarchy, and the constitutional conventions that the monarch would only intervene to preserve the forms of the British constitution.
The last time a monarch made any attempt to refuse the Royal Assent over a law they felt should be blocked on moral or religious grounds (specifically on the grounds that they felt it violated their Coronation Oath to uphold the Supremacy of the Church of England) was in 1829 when George IV wished to refuse assent to the Roman Catholic Relief Act. At that time, it was made clear by Parliament and his Ministers that the monarch no longer had the power to refuse assent on such grounds.
The way some sections of the media talked about recent events (headlines like "Queen approves gay marriage") give the impression the Queen personally endorsed this. She did not. She simply did what she is required to do under the constitution - gave Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament that had passed through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and where no constitutional issues were addressed, and where no constitutional principles were violated. I doubt she agrees with the law - but she has signed hundreds of laws she did not agree with over the years as is her duty.
And how will that work for the continuity of the Royal Family if an heir is “gay” so he/she can’t reproduce the old fashioned way?
If that happened, they would not produce a direct heir, so the crown would simply pass to whoever was next in the line of succession. The line of succession is known to a few thousand places at this point (seriously - anybody who is a legitimate non-Catholic descendent of Electress Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714) is in the line of succession to the British crown under the Act of Settlement of 1701 - she was chosen because she was a Granddaughter of King James I, and was Queen Anne's closest heir who was definitely Protestant - Sophia died shortly before Anne, so never became Queen but her son became King George I - and there are people who have worked out her descendants and therefore those in the line of succession to somewhere over 5000 places).
The succession is secure - if somebody can't produce a direct heir, the crown will pass to a sibling, Uncle, Aunt, Nephew, Niece, or cousin as needed - Queen Victoria was the neice of William IV who died without heirs (all his legitimate children predeceased him), Edward VIII was succeeded by his brother George VI when he abdicated without having any children.
You are very kind to go to such length to counter some of my statements but as I just stated, unless the Queen is worried about a Republican out break, to stand against a morally questionable statue as the Defender of the Faith might be worth the fight. Regardless of the precedence...maybe I’m too much a Colonialist because I don’t get the “go along to get along” mentality. And because of this acquiescence, how do you KNOW she takes issue with many of the laws she must assent to? And why should we care what she thinks and what difference does it make if she does? As a patriot, she should make her thoughts known, if not publicly, privately to her government. It was revealed recently that Prince Charles has used his influence as much as he can, no?
And while I maybe seeming ridiculous on the issue of “gay marriage”, why would the throne pass to the next in line who may have a “normal” heterosexual relationship and reproduce that way because homosexuality is now considered “normal” with the recognition of “gay marriage”? Why should it be different for the Royal Family? Again, you can’t have it both ways, regardless of your station in life.
I read this post of yours after the more recent one so forgive the reverse response...
Finally, thanks for the review of British Royal history from the Regency on...
I know it very well.