Posted on 03/09/2016 1:19:10 PM PST by NRx
Queen Elizabeth II opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage in England because of her deeply held Christian values, a close friend has reportedly told a London-based newspaper.
The UK Daily Mail published a story Sunday which claimed that the queen, who is also head of the Church of England, secretly opposed gay marriage but was in favor of civil partnerships. The unnamed "friend" said the monarch was frustrated by the fact that she could only "advise and warn" on the issue.
"It was the 'marriage' thing that she thought was wrong, because marriage ought to be sacrosanct between a man and a woman," said the friend, as quoted by the Daily Mail.
The Daily Mail also stated that the reported revelation of her views on the definition of marriage was part of an overall series of stories about the queen as she nears her 90th birthday.
With all due respect to British FReepers, who’s calling the shots in GB if gay marriage is legal but the Queen doesn’t support gay marriage?
“She gave royal assent to the Tories’ homosexual marriage law that defines it as such.”
She has no choice.
She reigns, but does not rule.
Not wanting to embrace something into Christian faith that doesn’t make sense under that faith is an eminently wise move.
Getting PC things in your faith is a perennial problem with faiths that are mixed up in Caesar. The best thing for the Church of England would for it not to be a Church of England except by legacy identification. No ecclesiastical office of defender of the faith in the government, because once this Queen goes to heaven, she can’t do anything more about what is happening on earth.
True, this might make it easier for England to slip as a secular country — but again this will keep the church from getting sucked in, if and when it does slip. If the Titanic has to go down, please don’t let it take the life boats with it too.
True... she’s a figure head. I don’t know how bad things would need to get before she would refuse to be a figure head for them. It’s just weird.
No, there is a choice. Claiming there is no choice but to assent to the liberal agenda is being part of that liberal agenda. Refusal of assent is still a reserve power.
Does not matter anyhow, since words and actions are a mismatch here and being for so-called civil partnerships is being for gay marriage.
So why have her around? I've never understood why the Brits still have a "Royal Family" when all they do is piss through money.
“Reigning” and not being a “ruler” is assinine.
She is lucky that she is queen. In Canada they have an agency that fines people for expressing opinions that offend gays. She is queen of Canada but an ordinary Canadian might be in trouble for saying that. Maybe people will just say she is senile and doesn’t know what she is saying.
Here in the US there would be demonstrations against her by effeminate bodybuilders running around in jock straps.
Good for her. It is too bad for the UK her son is a reprobate.
Most people won’t mention that the Queen had to SIGN the legislation redefining marriage.
This broke clock wasn’t even correct now.
I can understand her dilemma.
She personally can’t support gay marriage, yet she had no choice but to sign a law legalizing it in order to avoid a parliamentary crisis ...
Which is to say, her hands are tied.
Then we have people who supposedly CLAIMED they heard her say that being able to sign the bill into law is “wonderful” ( All of these reports by the way, came from Queer supporting websites ).
I really hate to be in her shoes.
RE: She gave royal assent to the Tories’ homosexual marriage law that defines it as such.
I can understand her dilemma.
She personally can’t support gay marriage, yet she had no choice but to sign a law legalizing it in order to avoid a parliamentary crisis ...
Which is to say, her hands are tied.
Then we have people who supposedly CLAIMED they heard her say that being able to sign the bill into law is “wonderful” ( All of these reports by the way, came from Queer supporting websites ).
I really hate to be in her shoes.
Have you seen how much it costs to run our "Royal Family" ?
She says something you should approve of, and all you do is come here and toss a hissy-fit.
If you don’t like the topic on this thread, pick another.
The Queen doing her best to save Her people from the queens.
I know!
The structure of the British government does not allow for the queen to do this.
This isnt an absolute monarchy, and hasn’t been so in 300+ years.
If she refuses, it would create a constitutional crisis for them.
She did, because she knows the Monarch must agree and should not assert her power because there would be a crisis of the unelected dictating to their chosen reps.
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.