Skip to comments.Queen fights for gay rights: Monarch makes historic pledge
Posted on 03/10/2013 4:04:25 AM PDT by haffast
click here to read article
However, Monmouth Tory MP David Davies said: I fail to see why the Queen needs to make a special statement on this countrys opposition to discrimination against gays and women. It is a statement of the blindingly obvious."
Viewpoint: What if women ruled the world?
BBC News Magazine ^ | 3-7-2013 | Dee Dee Myers
The love of nation and self is more powerful than the insane followers of a goat f'ing, child raping satanist.
Queers would soon STFU and quietly disappear back into THEIR bungholes (pun intended)
Earlier posting of similar article from the Telegraph.
Searched "queen" didn't see it.
It has to be something in the air.
For thousands of years the world has recognised queers as an abomination, and all of a sudden we are changing to enable them.
God must be setting a trap. If He is we are falling into it.
IMHO I think it’s too late. Not giving up, just aware of the supernatural forces behind the movement and the fallen Adamic nature of Man. Christian apostacy is allowing it.
Here are a few notes from some reading I did in the past:
Islam in the United Kingdom
“Islam has been present in the United Kingdom since its formation in 1707, though it was not legally recognised until the Trinitarian Act in 1812. Today it is the second largest religion in the country with estimates suggesting that by 2010 the total Muslim population had reached 2.869 million.”
Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813
“It has been regarded as legalising the practice of *Islam*, which does not have a trinitarian doctrine; however as the Blasphemy Act applied only to those educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, the amending Act would in theory have applied to converts only to Islam and even then would not have allowed them *to deny the truth of the Christian religion.*”
“The Blasphemy Act was repealed in 1967, implicitly taking the Doctrine of the Trinity Act with it.”
Blasphemy Act 1697
“The Blasphemy Act 1697 (9 Will 3 c 35) was an Act of the Parliament of England. It made it an offence for any person, educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, by writing, preaching, teaching or advised speaking, *to deny the Holy Trinity*, to claim there is more than one god, to deny “the truth” of Christianity and to deny the Bible as divine authority.”
“The first offence resulted in being rendered incapable of holding any office or place of trust. The second offence resulted in being rendered incapable of bringing any action, of being guardian or executor, or of taking a legacy or deed of gift, and three years imprisonment without bail.”
“The Act was directed against apostates at the beginning of the *deist* movement in England, particularly after the 1696 publication of John Toland’s book Christianity Not Mysterious.”
History of Islam in the UK
Islam in the United Kingdom (Or the The True Cost of Cheap Labor - take note, present day America. You’d think we’d have learned our lesson from our history of slavery. - haffast)
“After the war, Britain was in the process of rebuilding its devastated economy and infrastructure, and so it benefited profoundly from this source of cheap labor.”
The Islamification of Britain: record numbers embrace Muslim faith
“The number of Britons converting to Islam has doubled in 10 years. Why? “
Growth Of Islam (surprised?)
FOX TV News - Islam World Most Growing Religion 2010
BBC NEWS : Islam is the fastest-growing religion in London
What will happen if Islam keeps growing?
Islamization of Paris
The *apostacy* of most post-modern “Christians” has been the *accessory* to the recent exponentially rapid growth of Islam across the world.
I will point out two things:
(1) The speech that is being reported does not refer to gays at all - it specifically refers to discrimination based on:
“gender, race, colour, creed, political belief” and that’s all. It also talks about “or other grounds” which some people are saying refers to sexuality - and perhaps it does, but when some grounds are being stated explicitly and some aren’t, headlines and articles that act as if the non specific category is the important one seem remarkably misleading.
(2) As a Constitutional Monarch, Her Majesty makes the speeches her government wants her to make on the subjects her government wants her to make them. She does not make speeches on political issues based on her own beliefs, but in her role as a Constitutional Monarch in a country with a government based on representative government. Even if she did make a speech explicitly supporting gay rights, it would say nothing about her own beliefs - only about the beliefs of her government. She has no power or right to speak against the policies of her government except in the very particular situation of a government attempting to act unconstitutionally. This speech is not her speech. It’s written by politicians for her to present their political position.
People need to understand how a constitutional monarchy works - the Queen is not an absolute ruler with the power to set policy, or even present it publically.
“We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination”
Then she might as well abdicate the throne because monarchy is the ancient form of discrimination that led to all others.
Not smart. .
The Queen and I are the same age. From afar, I’ve been mostly proud of her for a lot of years dating from WW2.
No more. Queen and I part ways at this point.
Yes, and now not-so-Great Britain is tangling with an ever growing muslim threat within her own borders. Oh well, as Britain goes, so goes the monarchy. Tra la, your Highness. It was an interesting history while it lasted. It must be senility setting in on the old bird, eh?
Please note that nothing in the statement mentions homosexuality. This is another example of the press twisting things to look the way they want it.
And as was noted in a previous post, the queen has little or no input in policy. She does and signs what she is expected to.
On political matters, the Queen is the servant of Parliament, unless exercising the reserve powers which would only be done to address a constitutional crisis.
The article is also, in my view, misrepresenting the speech which does not, in fact, refer to sexuality even once. It refers to racial discrimination, sex discrimination, skin colour, religion, and political beliefs explicitly. It does mention sexuality at all.
Please don’t advertise your ignorance. This is government policy not the queen’s. She is only allowed to rubberstamp what her government decides.
Not surprised - it’s a bloody “queen” who’s pushing homosexual perversion.
” It would be unconstitutional for her not to do so.”
LOL. Then the monarchy has clearly outlived its usefulness. The queen will suposedly use socialist code words like “gender equality” and “women empowerment”. Everyone knows what she’s talking about and I doubt that this is all a consensus in the “commonwealth”.
“Please note that nothing in the statement mentions homosexuality.”
What statement? The text of the speech hasn’t been released.
This article is based on palace sources and multiple media outlets are reporting the same thing.
No one can force the queen to make any statements. This argument about constitutionality is utter BS.
Queen to sign equal rights charter
10 March 2013 Last updated at 04:54 ET
“Backed by 54 nations, it also covers democracy, rule of law, international security and freedom of expression.”
“Prime Minister David Cameron has in the past pressed Commonwealth leaders on the issue of gay rights.”
“A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “At a Commonwealth event on Monday, the Queen will sign a charter agreed upon by the 54 members of the Commonwealth.”
“The Queen, as in all matters, is apolitical but is signing the document in her capacity as head of the Commonwealth.”
“Sources close to the royal household said the Queen would not give her personal endorsement to the charter because of her apolitical status.”
Queen to sign equal rights charter
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said tonight: “At a Commonwealth event on Monday, the Queen will sign a charter agreed upon by the 54 members of the Commonwealth. The Queen, as in all matters, is apolitical but is signing the document in her capacity as head of the Commonwealth.”
The Government is introducing new legislation ending discrimination against women in the line of succession to the British throne. The measure will mean that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first baby can succeed to the throne, regardless of whether the child is a girl or a boy.
Ministers are set to introduce the new law after receiving consent from all the Commonwealth realms to push ahead with the change. The Succession to the Crown Bill will also end the ban on anyone in the line of succession marrying a Roman Catholic.
The Queen may approve, but God does not. He has the final say that He makes clear in Revelation 22:15. People who are sexually immoral cannot inherit eternal life.
England, where every king can aspire to be a queen.