[T]he Queen of England will announce new legislation to allow homosexual couples to register their partnerships
Defender of the Faith
Posted on 11/18/2003 11:18:48 AM PST by Stop Legal Plunder
Same-sex Agenda Advances in Britain
Queen expected to endorse benefits for same-sex couples; bishop accused of inciting hatred.
In a speech written by Prime Minister Tony Blair for delivery this week, the Queen of England will announce new legislation to allow homosexual couples to register their partnerships, granting them many of the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, while stopping short of creating "gay marriage,” according to a report by Catholic World News.
Yet many critics are arguing that this meaty gesture essentially creates same-sex marriage. A family law expert told the Sunday Times: “The state is recognizing and sanctioning same-sex relationships as deserving equal treatment." He added, "The reform would in effect be virtually the same as marriage.”
The legislation, which would not come into full effect until 2010, allows same-sex couples to collect pensions and adopt and care for their partner’s children in the same manner as traditional marriages. In addition to imposing new costs on private sector employers who would be forced to extend the full range of their marriage benefits to same-sex couples, the legislation is expected to cost the British government 75 million pounds in 2010.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill, a Liberal Democrat peer, told the media that he welcomed the new initiative and sees it as “a great step forward for gay couples.”
Meanwhile, police in Chester responded to complaints about remarks Bishop Peter Forster made in the Chester Chronicle recently concerning sexual re-orientation.
The Chester Chronicle quoted Forster as saying: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can re-orientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a specialist on the subject. That is in the area of psychiatric health." He also told the paper that traditional marriages are a healthier environment for raising children than alternative households.
This sparked immediate complaints by homosexuals who deemed the comments “scandalous,” and levied charges that Forster was inciting homophobia. The police responded to the one formal complaint they received accusing Forster a hate crime.
After a brief investigation, Chief Constable Fahy said, as reported in the Church Times: “He [the bishop] has got his own personal view, and I’m sure his comments are based on very strong personal religious conviction. But I do think we need to remind ourselves how this translates,” warned Fahy. “I think in a civilized society that is totally unacceptable.” Church Times, that no charges would be filed because the Public Order Act of 1986, which made it a criminal offense to incite racial hatred, did not apply to sexual orientation. However, he did chide the bishop for his comments.
“He [the bishop] has got his own personal view, and I’m sure his comments are based on very strong personal religious conviction. But I do think we need to remind ourselves how this translates,” warned Fahy. “I think in a civilized society that is totally unacceptable.”
[T]he Queen of England will announce new legislation to allow homosexual couples to register their partnerships
We used to get good things sent over from America - now we just get sexual depravity and Madonna. Same thing really.
We're very sorry about Madonna. And Britney, for that matter. But we don't always send bad things: you're getting Bush this week.
I think the monarch's role as head of the church is the worst aspect of the news. Once homosexuality is mainstreamed in the UK, attention will turn to the church. If the rumors about Charles prove true and he ascends to the throne, the Church of England may face great persecution or split if they hold the line on Christian sexual standards. And if they cave, it will be worse than persecution or a split.
Would you like to re-phrase that?
How could that happen?
pun not intended?
I suppose so, although one may be able to distinguish that by saying she is just fulfilling her formal constitutional duty to submit legislation -- but I don't know if there is such a duty in the British system. If there is, she'd be taking off one hat and putting on another.
As if that line wasn't full of homosexuals. Ever heard of James I?
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.