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.
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.