Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Queen Elizabeth Says Devotion to Christian Faith Is Why She Won't Support Gay Marriage
Christian Post ^ | 03-09-2016 | Michael Gryboski

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: anglicanchurch; churchofengland; gaykkk; homofascism; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; queenelizabethii; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: the scotsman

May well be true; tourists attractions?


61 posted on 03/09/2016 3:35:29 PM PST by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; ONE BOX LEFT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I am a conservative, I support civil partnerships but not gay marriage. I also support the right to choose and would legalise prostitution.

I’d rather have a world with no abortion or selling sex, but you have to be pragmatic and common sense. I have no problem with civil partnerships, gay and lesbian couples who commit to each other should have some status, if not marriage, and have legal protection over issues like money, property and wills.

I see CP’s as a good thing, as they make gays and lesbians commit to each other in monogamous relationships. And surely that’s a good thing, rather than a society with everyone, gay, bi or straight, screwing each other with no commitment to another. No love, just lust.


62 posted on 03/09/2016 3:36:53 PM PST by the scotsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: NRx

Last of the greats.


63 posted on 03/09/2016 3:41:54 PM PST by Ann Archy (ABORTION....... The HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

You tried pulling this line on me in the past.

Pragmatism is the tactic of leftists. Keep feeding the crocodile and it still gets to the point of either you or the croc.


64 posted on 03/09/2016 3:42:14 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Not sure how failing to veto when she could on a conscience issue, is dictatorial, though again if I were the king of the world I wouldn’t have someone like this being a monarch of supposedly independent countries. Canada? Australia?


65 posted on 03/09/2016 3:51:48 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Ach, away wie ye.

Pragmatism is a long part of human history: the Greek philosophers were so, as were men like David Hume. Nonsense to say its a leftist idea.

I am a pragmatist on some issues, and have never been nor will ever be of the left. At ‘worst’, I may lean towards a centrist or libertarian bent on a few issues. But I remain conservative on most. Centre right or right.


66 posted on 03/09/2016 3:52:09 PM PST by the scotsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

If it’s a genuine conscience issue (which this would be; it’s a case of wordicide, it would be like a law calling blue yellow) then fooey. Nonsense has no valid place in law unless we want to start to punish people for insisting on making sense.


67 posted on 03/09/2016 3:54:28 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Pragmatism is the all excuser. Go along to get along, no bigger reason.


68 posted on 03/09/2016 3:55:30 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Pragmatism, if “realpolitik” and its forebears is meant, led to every war ever fought. The ideologue will always beat down the pragmatist, whether the ideology is good or ill.


69 posted on 03/09/2016 4:08:37 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman; All
"Its good that we have an impartial person like the monarch, but they cannot be allowed to get involved in politics."

Thanks for info.

70 posted on 03/09/2016 4:18:04 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

As I said before — the constitutions (and, by extension, constitutional law) in the Commonwealth Realm countries are quite different from that of the U.S.A.

Your premise (that she could “veto”) is incorrect. You could visit a law library in Canada for the reasons why — it takes a lot of explaining. The customs and practices (and precedents) of every nation in the Realm, going back hundreds of years, have to be taken into account. Bottom line — if the Queen had withheld assent from this bill; it would likely be the last official act of any British Monarch.

And yes, “By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith” Queen Elizabeth is Canada’s Queen and Head of State.


71 posted on 03/09/2016 4:21:32 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Well I wouldn’t want the office around rather than having one giving ceremonial nods to something that’s about as just plain wrong as anything can be... ignore the sodomy issues for now, this legislates a nonsense definition of something that dates from time immemorial. When a society DID support homo pairings, it never stole the “marriage” terminology, till the modern craze.

But of course I can only opine, just as you can opine about what we brash Americans say.


72 posted on 03/09/2016 4:28:42 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Please don’t mistake my support for the Monarchy, and our current Queen for substantive approval of same-sex marriage. We’re actually in almost complete agreement on the substantive issues. (BTW, FWIW, I’m a fan of the brashest of all Americans currently standing for President. Give me brash over mealy-mouthed any day.)


73 posted on 03/09/2016 4:42:23 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

So you make it clear that you personally believe it is okay to kill babies because they are inconvenient. What other citizens do you also think it is okay to kill because they are inconvenient?


74 posted on 03/09/2016 6:58:18 PM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

Oh no! Parliament will cut off funding of the monarchy for sure. And puddlethumper Cameron will lead the way.


75 posted on 03/09/2016 7:19:14 PM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NRx

God save the Queen!

She just laid down a red line of morality for all of her people. That’s courageous leadership defined!


76 posted on 03/09/2016 9:00:28 PM PST by Windflier (Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

I don’t really wish to get into that long argument. I don’t support abortion, I wish for a world without it. What I support is the right of a woman to choose.


77 posted on 03/10/2016 6:28:32 AM PST by the scotsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

To choose what?


78 posted on 03/10/2016 6:50:18 AM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

To carry to term or not without it being forced upon her by law or others.


79 posted on 03/10/2016 6:51:20 AM PST by the scotsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

So maybe the gov’t shouldn’t enforce laws of any sort including those against murder. A woman may want to kill her colicky newborn because she can’t cope.


80 posted on 03/10/2016 7:08:16 AM PST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson