Her Majesty signed into law the Abortion Act in 1967. A Christian monarch thereby signed into death countless numbers of unborn children.
Her Majesty signed into law the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, thereby allowing human embryos to be stripped of their innate human dignity and to be treated as objects for scientific progress, even though the evidence suggested that human stem cells were far more effective in the research.
Her Majesty signed into law the Equality Act, which has been used quite publicly and extensively in working against the interests of those who hold committed Christian values in the workplace.
Is Her Majesty going to sign into law 'gay marriage', giving homosexual unions the same status as natural marriages between men and women? Or will the Supreme Governer of the Church of England finally say 'No'? Some would say that Her Majesty would be causing a constitutional crisis if she did so. Well, surely, if Her Majesty signs it, there would be nothing to stop a future King, or indeed a future Queen from contracting a gay marriage and thereby put an end to the royal dynasty? Now that's what I would call a 'constitutional crisis'. Or perhaps gay marriages would just be for 'the masses. Maybe that's a bit far-fetched, perhaps gay marriages would just be for 'the masses', but is this what Her Majesty wants for loyal subjects? Gay marriage? Is this the possibility that Her Majesty wants for Her Majesty's family?
9 comments:
We do not know how the good Lord will judge Elizabeth Windsor, when she is summoned to appear before him. She can plead extenuating circumstances - she was probably very badly advised by C of E bishops who tailor doctrine to suit public opinion, and by constitutional lawyers for whom the British Constitution, not divine law, is the ultimate reality.
Only the Lord knows whether she went against her own conscience in signing into law these horrible acts. We should pray for her.
We don't know how Our Lord will judge her.
All I have laid down is the facts of Her Majesty's reign.
Yes, we should pray for her.
Why the surprise? The Church of England was created so that the political class could avoid having to defer to God's Law.
Surely we ought to distinguish between the Queen and the Church of England. The C of E is a political creation to serve the interests of the political leaders of the day. As the State no longer wants it, its authority is seen to be a sham, dependent upon a secular authority which has moved on. The Queen is Head of State and has no power to refuse to sign laws passed by Parliament. Those laws are not her fault but ours. We have elected the politicians who framed them. They are the democratic will of the people. They are our fault and we shall be judged.
Errrrrr, HM the Q has never signed an Act of Parliament into being in her life. That's not how "Royakl Assent" works.
Can I suggest a British Constitution 101, including how to distinguish "The Crown" and "The Monarch"?
But she could say no, right?
I just think the gay marriage thing takes it to the brink, surely?
The day HM withholds the Royal Assent is the day that the Royal Assent ceases to be necessary for legislation.
In practice, Mr. England, no, Her Majesty could not say no, even if in theory Her Majesty might.
It is a typically British fudge: the Royal Assent is in effect preserved on the condition that it is always Assenting. Should Her Majesty refuse to Assent, we would find ourselves a Republic, with an elected Head of State who would doubtless be as in favour of the many evils you cite as our successive Heads of Government.
Be careful what you (implicitly) wish for. We do not know what conversations Her Majesty held behind closed doors, what arguments Her Majesty put forth, what efforts Her Majesty has made. We do not know, we cannot tell, and we should not judge.
Post a Comment