Gay marriage becomes legal in Britain as Queen Elizabeth II gives royal approval

Washington Post Europe ^ | AP

[Olog-hai]

It cannot be the same argument whatsoever. Unless you are trying to tell me that George IV was getting gay marriage shoved down his throat??

[Olog-hai]

Nobody regards FT to be in the same category as either AITF or TDDUP.

Now if you want to compare Sanford and Son with Steptoe and Son . . . (the US version had fewer seasons in this case; and I did see both)

[naturalman1975]

No, but the issue was one where he believed giving the Royal Assent would be in violation of his Coronation Oath. It was made clear that if it had passed Parliament, that was not the case, because the Lords Spiritual had exercised the powers of the Church to influence the law such that they existed.

[naturalman1975]

Off the Royal family's web page. A British government site that generally does a good job of outlining these matters:

History of the Monarchy: George IV

In 1829, George IV was forced by his ministers, much against his will and his interpretation of his coronation oath, to agree to Catholic Emancipation.

The law in question was the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, the Prime Minister of the day was the Duke of Wellington (the man who had won the Battle of Waterloo).

What it did was extend a right (that of sitting in Parliament) to a group that had previously been denied that right (Roman Catholics). The fact that the King did not personally agree that they should be allowed to, and the fact that he believed that giving the Royal Assent would violate his Coronation oath did not give him the ability to refuse Royal Assent. He did not have that power. The monarch does not have it today.

[the scotsman]

Actually, as a Brit, I think Fawlty and Till Death are two of the greatest sitcoms of all time. Till Death is rightly regarded in the UK as one of the all time classics. Right up with Fawlty Towers.

As a Brit, I admire the US version, it stands up on its own, possibly the only UK to US sitcom transfer that does.

I have no wish to compare the ‘and Son’ versions. As comparing the Redd Foxx version to the BBC original is like comparing a cheap tasting 99c hamburger to a meal in a five star restaurant. I have seen both, and the original is as great a sitcom as was ever made. I thought the US version was crap.

I am not being the snobby Brit btw, I can think of howlingly bad UK versions of great US sitcoms. The UK versions of Married with Children and the Golden Girls for example were truly awful.

[Talisker]

You speak only of the superficial legal limits on the Queen, not her actual real-world powers. In fact, the Queen has massive legal power simply by her deciding to argue that whatever she wants to do is, somehow, a constitutional issue. She literally has teams of attorneys who could argue such things at the drop of a hat - and of course, she has the wealth necessary to pursue anything she wants to pursue. but she doesn’t have to, because she does her arguing behind the scenes.

As for that wealth, it is more than considerable. in fact, it is so extreme that just by moving it around she can punish or reward any political faction she wants, and thereby apply enormous pressure to achieve political ends.

In the real world, what happens in Great Britain is exactly what the Queen wants to happen. The democracy there is just a cover story to pacify the people. The same dynamics are in place all over the world, including America, Australia, Europ, China, Russia, japan and everywhere else. Theses places might not have an acknowledged royal, but the global system of privilege and power is quite unified, and operates under the radar of the general public - but not as far under as people believe.

None of this is conspiracy theory, but straightforward economics. When you are talking about people and families, in GB and around the world, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, to subtract extreme political and legal influence from their financial dealings is simply naivete’.

[ClearBlueSky]

Did I say ‘on the throne’? And Chuckles will make 4, IMO. ( May he and his mare never rule England).Wasn’t one of the Queens suspected to be a man- or was very ‘unfeminine’ at the least? Royal families, then—way more than 3, I’ll wager.

[naturalman1975]

You speak only of the superficial legal limits on the Queen, not her actual real-world powers. In fact, the Queen has massive legal power simply by her deciding to argue that whatever she wants to do is, somehow, a constitutional issue.

No, she does not. Whether something is a constitutional issue or not is defined by a large body of common law, precedent, and convention.

There is a reason why the Monarch has not refused Royal Assent in three hundred years - it's because the power is limited to a small number of issues.

The Queen couldn't even prevent the British government decommissioning HMY Britannia against her will and desires. And while she could certainly afford to buy her own yacht, she has refused to do so because that would imply a disagreement with HMG and she will not publically imply such.

[EternalVigilance]

God sits on His throne, above every human throne.

And He will have the last word on everything.

[x]

You speak only of the superficial legal limits on the Queen, not her actual real-world powers. In fact, the Queen has massive legal power simply by her deciding to argue that whatever she wants to do is, somehow, a constitutional issue. She literally has teams of attorneys who could argue such things at the drop of a hat - and of course, she has the wealth necessary to pursue anything she wants to pursue. but she doesn’t have to, because she does her arguing behind the scenes.

Parliament has only to vote her gone, and she's gone.

Getting lawyers involved would only wear out her welcome and hasten her going.

Famous quote:

We must not let in daylight upon magic. We must not bring the Queen into the combat of politics, or she will cease to be reverenced by all combatants; she will become one combatant among many. -- Walter Bagehot

The monarchy has only survived this long because the Queen hasn't gotten involved in partisan politics. She might survive one intervention in politics but the handwriting would be on the wall for her.

The "powers" of the Queen are to be consulted, to advise, and to warn. She can also ask a politician to form a government if the results of an election aren't an obvious victory for one party and its leader.

[wideawake]

Did I say 'on the throne'?

You said "monarchs" - so, yes you did. That's what "monarch" means.

[Albion Wilde]

I don't presume to tell my Queen what she should and should not do, but...She does not and can not speak out against Her Majesty's Government in public.

Oh, pardon me, but what would happen if she did? Would it be worse than inflicting gay marriage on a people who were once, and in some quarters still considered, the leader of Western civilization and defender of Christendom? What would they do, insist she step down if she made a speech on television upholding the religious and social value of blood family, which is after all the source of her office and that of her children? UK already had civil marriage, so what good can possibly come of the government forcing the church to eat crap? Are you saying the Parliament would interrupt her Jubilee and make her surrender her crown?

[x]

UK already had civil marriage, so what good can possibly come of the government forcing the church to eat crap?

Didn't happen yet, so far as I can tell.

The law enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales, although the Church of England is barred from conducting same-sex unions. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into civil partnerships — which carry similar rights and responsibilities to marriage — to convert their relationships to marriage. -- Source

[naturalman1975]

Oh, pardon me, but what would happen if she did?

It'd lead to the ultimate abolition of the monarchy. Some people would see that as a good thing, but you have to understand that in the Commonwealth Realms, the existence of the Monarchy is the ultimate brake on tyranny by politicians - the Queen's ability (or that of her representatives in her other realms besides the United Kingdom) to intervene on constitutional matters is what stops - has stopped - governments becoming tyrannical. It's rarely tested, because they know that intervention will occur if needed, but in both Canada and Australia, this power has been used to prevent governments acting despotically during the twentieth century.

Would it be worse than inflicting gay marriage on a people who were once, and in some quarters still considered, the leader of Western civilization and defender of Christendom?

In my view, yes. Because it would not actually stop it and would weaken the powers of the Monarch to intervene in cases where they are supposed to intervene.

What would they do, insist she step down if she made a speech on television upholding the religious and social value of blood family, which is after all the source of her office and that of her children?

Yes, ultimately they would. Because she would have then violated the conventions that govern British constitutional law, and she could no longer function in her constitutional role having done that. She can only embody the constitution and its conventions while she upholds the constitution.

UK already had civil marriage, so what good can possibly come of the government forcing the church to eat crap?

No good at all - but that isn't the issue. Parliament has the power to pass bad laws and it does so sometimes.

Are you saying the Parliament would interrupt her Jubilee and make her surrender her crown?

First of all, her Jubilee is over - the Diamond Jubilee was last year. But, yes, that could happen. She could be forced to abdicate as her uncle was. Edward VIII was not forced by any Act of Parliament to abdicate - he was simply quietly informed that the governments of the United Kingdom, and the Dominions, would not accept him as King, and that would make government impossible. And so he chose to abdicate.

Have you ever read his abdication speech where he explains his decision:

The ministers of the crown, and in particular, Mr. Baldwin, the Prime Minister, have always treated me with full consideration. There has never been any constitutional difference between me and them, and between me and Parliament. Bred in the constitutional tradition by my father, I should never have allowed any such issue to arise.

The constitutional conventions of the United Kingdom require the Monarch to avoid conflict with Parliament. If they can't avoid conflict, they must abdicate. That is their duty.

Parliament would not have to kick the Queen out. If she lost their confidence, she would abdicate - exactly as she would require a Prime Minister to leave office if he loses the confidence of the House of Commons.

The very first article of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which explains why Parliament removed James II from power, and replaced him with William and Mary reads:

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of parliament. King William and Queen Mary agreed to the limitations placed on them by Parliament at that time:

And whereas the said late king James the Second having abdicated the government, and the throne being thereby vacant ... the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons ... do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare;

1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.

2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.

......

All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted, and established by authority of this present parliament, and shall stand, remain, and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted, and established accordingly.

This is the law of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is the constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Queen would abdicate rather than put Parliament into the position of removing her. But if it came to it, yes, Parliament would remove her.

It has happened before. Edward VIII chose to abdicate. James II was forced from the throne by Parliament who appointed a new Monarch in his place. And Charles I was executed.

[Albion Wilde]

You have spent a lot of thought on your reply, and I want to give it some careful reading and consideration, although tonight I have to do other things. I will get back to you, and thank you for your generous explanation and patience.

[426cuda]

Monty Python and Keeping Up Appearances are my favorite British sitcoms. By the way, meant no offense to England or anyone of the British persuasion with my Archie Bunker reference. I just despise homosexuality no matter what the country. My grandfather was in the Royal Navy and came to this country at the age of 15. If it wasn’t for England we wouldn’t have our beloved King James Bible. Pip Pip Cheerio.

[naturalman1975]

I will get back to you, and thank you for your generous explanation and patience.

You're welcome. I actually want people to understand how this system of government works - and that includes why sometimes it may not work as people might like.

[Elsie]

Gay marriage becomes legal in Britain as Queen Elizabeth II gives royal approval

Uh...

...GOD still doesn't!

---

Genesis 13:13

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Psalms 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

---

---

2 Peter 2

1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

---

---

But there IS hope!!!

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

---

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
 

 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Though by which The United States were founded.

---

 

 

 

Mayflower Compact

 

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.

 

 

 

[Elsie]

I had a 64 Dodge Dart with a 426 emblem on the fender.