Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay marriage becomes legal in Britain as Queen Elizabeth II gives royal approval
Washington Post Europe ^ | AP

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britain; divineretribution; fightingagainstgod; formerlygreatbritain; gaymarriage; gaystapo; homonaziagenda; homonazimarriage; homosexualagenda; noenglandanymore; noenglandnow; queen; royalassent; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last
To: informavoracious

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.


41 posted on 07/17/2013 8:13:03 AM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
"Some “Guardian of The Faith” she turned out to be."

UK never followed the True Church, anyway. Only man-made churches from the 1500's.
42 posted on 07/17/2013 8:29:00 AM PDT by NoRedTape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: livius
Approved by the Queen, who is the head of the Anglican Church...

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.

43 posted on 07/17/2013 8:40:10 AM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious

Will some Royal couple one day be King/King or Queen/Queen? Sorry I asked.


44 posted on 07/17/2013 8:40:51 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Impeach the leech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious

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.


45 posted on 07/17/2013 9:04:45 AM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; Resolute Conservative

“...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....”


46 posted on 07/17/2013 9:14:17 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious

I thought Prince Charles said he wants to marry a tampon.


47 posted on 07/17/2013 9:20:40 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
Brings to mind what I think is the truth behind the famous quote (below) with uncertain origin:

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.

48 posted on 07/17/2013 9:32:37 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NoRedTape
Only man-made churches from the 1500's.

Though by which The United States were founded.

49 posted on 07/17/2013 9:46:30 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

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.


50 posted on 07/17/2013 10:08:33 AM PDT by martha43
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

When you consider how many Royals and members of the upper class swing both ways, it’s not a big surprise.


51 posted on 07/17/2013 10:09:55 AM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

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.


52 posted on 07/17/2013 10:13:52 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
Found something in the Daily Mail now; oddly though, it focuses on Stephen Fry the actor in the headline. They do have the conservative Christian clerics’ side of the story.
53 posted on 07/17/2013 10:27:09 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious

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.


54 posted on 07/17/2013 10:31:39 AM PDT by Darin1948
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious

I thind she did it to piss off the Muzzies.


55 posted on 07/17/2013 10:51:31 AM PDT by Rappini (Veritas vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious; miele man

Bump for later disgust.


56 posted on 07/17/2013 12:01:05 PM PDT by miele man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martha43
I agree. She had an opportunity to show leadership in vetoing it, or whatever the analogous term is in GB.

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.

57 posted on 07/17/2013 1:01:29 PM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Found something in the Daily Mail now; oddly though, it focuses on Stephen Fry the actor in the headline. They do have the conservative Christian clerics’ side of the story.

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.

58 posted on 07/17/2013 1:03:16 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("Remember... the first revolutionary was Satan."--Russian Orthodox Archpriest Dmitry Smirnov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RansomOttawa

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.


59 posted on 07/17/2013 1:09:59 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
Robert Bork's book, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah - Modern Liberalism and American Decline" cleary states why we have sunk into socialism. It's kinda old (1996), but is even more relevant today and it explains why the children of the Boomer generation went so far off the path with their 60's radicalism and beyond.

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.


60 posted on 07/17/2013 1:11:06 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("Remember... the first revolutionary was Satan."--Russian Orthodox Archpriest Dmitry Smirnov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson