And if the monarch ever acted independently he/she would be replaced. obviously. Don't be sillier than you need be.
You're over-simplifying the matter. It was a minority in parliament that attempted to strip the power. She acted with the majority of parliament to end the debate and vote that the majority would have won anyway. Such practice may seem odd and unilateral to us in America, but it's a standard proceedure in England, and is consistent with the will of the majority in Parliament. If it had been the opposite way around, and the Majority wished to pass the bill, it would be an unacceptable use of her power. You have provided an example where the Monarch has influenced proceedings with the assent of the Majority, but you have not provided an example where the Monarch did so against the will of the majority in Parliament. I would "graciously" assent too, if to do otherwise might come at the cost of my head.
As the Monarch has to sign the bill which brings into law that which places restrictions to her powers, she would have done so of her own volition.
Conservative christians, exclusively? I thought Sharia Law was now thoroughly in place in the UK. They are part of the culture, community and country, and are surely entitled to a voice on the issue.
I don't see why two consenting adults engaged in a civil dispute can't amicably consent to having it decided according to a coin toss if they choose. As someone who lives in a country where conservative Christians have all too much political power,( Blasphemy laws anyone?) I am especially sensitive to their posturing. Perhaps you are more sensitive to Islamic conservatives having had more contact with them? Sure voice an opinion don't try to get the state to enforce your morality on others.
??? Thats nice, but I made no assertions as to what the British people would find to be acceptable or "unacceptable" and was instead speaking in terms of what she is within her authority to do. What is legal under the UK's laws of "government" And then they would need the assent of the next prince or princess in line. Here in the US we get, every four years to politically behead our presidents and no need to literally behead them in order to extinguish their authority. It is extinguished by the operation of the law that gave them the authority.
Custom does not grant her the ability to do so of her own volition. She could, in theory, but such an act would probably not be good for her health or future as queen. Only in the most extreme example of a crisis where she had the backing of the people could she concievably act independantly and unilaterally.
Such a simple look at their government would lead you to severely misunderstand how their government actually functions. Common law and custom are not written, but it's just as legally relevant as the authorities that are ceremonially executed by the Queen. If you wish to understand and predict what the queen will do, you have to consider common law and custom, as well as the will of parliament's majority. The Queen always functions within those lines. And there's no need to behead them in England either, as there's no monarch so willing to assert their authority as to lose their head. She's welcome to test that theory if she'd like, but she'll find where the final authority ultimatly rests with a guillotine. As will the next prince or princess who wishes to test the theory. Ceremonial power != the actual power as it functions. The world's not as black and white as you often make out out to be.
And what makes you think she doesn't have the backing of the people? The comments from posters on this forum?
I suspect it isn't too wild a stab to say murder is illegal in the UK. This being the case, I have a question: how on Earth did yguy's morality manage to get itself codified into British law hundreds of years before yguy was born? Hmmmm?
I don't know the statistics on support or opposition in England, nor are such statistics often reliable, but that's not the question. The question is what the Queen would do in the event that Parliament passes the legislation. It would be a truely spectacular event in modern English history to see the monarchy perform such a partisan action directly against the will of Parliamentary majority. I take the rarity of it as evidence that the queen would not think she had the backing of the people, even if she did. There's a big difference between a law that's irreversable, and a law like Gay Marriage. If the monarch truely feels she has the backing of the people, it's more likely the Monarchy would move to dissolve parliament and hold new elections rather than directly block legislation. Or simply wait for the next Parliamentary elections. The monarchy does not need to make such a bold assertion of power in this case, at the risk of losing her power and possibly much, much more than that.
I doubt if such a monarch would get the backing of the people. The monarch isn't elected, the parliament is full of elected persons. I suspect that the warm regard the people have for the monarchy would be sorely tested in the monarch tried to override the constitution.
If the monarch did attempt to unilaterally override the will of parliament, excepting a truely exceptional crisis, it would surely call into question the continued existence of the monarchy as a feature of the British constitution.
Spoken like someone who is clueless about morality. It's plenty relevant to the implication that "imposing your morality on others" is...well, immoral. Which of course is what I was responding to.
It is not illegal because it is immoral it is illegal because it infringes the rights of others. Coincidentally in most major religions and philosophies it is also immoral to kill someone.
Argument by mindless repetition is only impressive to those who are mindless, hth. Those of us who understand the connection between unalienable rights and morality know it's not coincidence.
yguy, like it or not... not everyone holds the same moral values you might, and if you haven't noticed not all of America's laws are based upon one or another's sense of "morality", but primarily upon ensuring people have certain rights and that they are not 'violated' by others. If laws were based upon even most American's common 'sense' of "morality"... a LOT of people on Wall Street would be on TRIAL and head for JAIL (likely in eminent fashion). And other aspects and dealings of the corporate world would also be illegal (where they certainly are not today). As it is, they are LEGALLY allowed to cheat and game things. That is FAR from being "moral".
You obviously have little regard for what the monarchy stands for and even lesser knowledge of it's significance if that's what you believe. The UK isn't a tin pot state with a contempt for traditions and history as much as some Americans who don't have much of a history to embrace would like to believe it is.
Dixon is supposing a very non-traditional, extreme scenario where the Queen may feel compelled to stand in the way against legislation that would be passed by the majority of parliament. Asking this very question throws tradition out the window, so of course any possible scenario that follows this train of thought is unlikely to follow a traditional path. And no, I don't believe the Queen would actually take this path because of the tradition it would violate, and the fact that Gay Marriage does not represent such an extreme crisis that requires an immediate and bold assertion of power to remedy. My scenarios were purely hypothetical.
You need to define your terms more accurately if you are going to begin to make a valid point. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, are sexual orientations, largely independent of volition, and devoid of moral attributes. Heterosexual and homosexual sexual activity, are acts of volition and, in themselves, similarly devoid of moral attributes. The circumstances in which they are carried out, however, may be considered immoral dependent upon a great many factors. Long term attachments and partnerships, such as marriage, are more often than not prompted by a level of affection we customarily refer to as love. The sexual orientation and the gender of those who make such commitment is irrelevant to the nature of the partnership. Ergo, a homosexual partnership based upon mutual affection is as valid as similarly based heterosexual partnership. If you can define something nonsensical in this position, be so kind as to enlighten us, but I suspect your view will be in the minority amongst sensible, unprejudiced, people.
