The Queen believed gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because of her Christian faith [DailyMail]

Why the Queen believed gay marriage shouldn't be allowed: Her Majesty confided that because of her Christian faith she thought only a man and a woman should be able to marry

• The Queen said to have opposed the legalisation of gay marriage in 2014
• She told a friend marriage should stay between a man and a woman
  
• But she admitted she was powerless to intervene and 'could only advise'
  
• The monarch celebrates her 90th birthday next month on April 21
  
• For more of the latest on the Queen visit www.dailymail.co.uk/thequeen

By RICHARD KAY AND GEOFFREY LEVY FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 17:57 EST, 6 March 2016 | UPDATED: 07:53 EST, 7 March 2016




The Queen, pictured, did not approve of legalization
of same-sex marriage, the Daily Mail can reveal


The Queen did not approve of the legalisation of same-sex marriage, the Daily Mail can reveal today.

While in favour of civil partnerships, as a woman of deep Christian faith she took a different view on the legislation allowing same-sex couples to ‘marry’.

She expressed her frustration to a friend at the height of the controversy, but admitted she was powerless to intervene, saying: ‘I can only advise and warn.’

The friend said: ‘It was the “marriage” thing that she thought was wrong, because marriage ought to be sacrosanct between a man and a woman.’

It is the first time her anxiety over the controversial issue has become known. The revelation is among the insights in a ground-breaking series starting in the Mail today to mark her 90th birthday next month.


Click here for the rest of the article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ny-man-woman-approved-civil-partnerships.html

 

Is the Queen the head of the Anglican Faith?

 

Nah as far as I know she is the same as Constantine was for the Early Church.
Also that only applies to the church of england

 

There is something determined in Anglican polity that has always made it difficult to answer simple questions.

The English Monarch has a particular relationship with the Church of England. That relationship does not extend to other member churches where the Queen will be recognised as being in communion with them, and no doubt indeed treated with a great deal of respect.

The monarch appoints ArchBishops and Bishops in the Church of England on the advice of the Prime Minister, who in turn receives advice from a church commision. Priests and Bishops in the Church of England swear allegiance to the Monarch. The monarch holds the title 'Supreme Governor', although the Church is led by bishops and regulated by its synods. The ArchBishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Church (and indeed of the Anglican Communion) as 'first among equals' in a conciliar pattern of Church administration which finds some of its pattern in Acts 15.

The ArchBishop of Canterbury normally presides over the coronation of the English Monarch.

There is an expectation that the Monarch will be a baptised and communicant member of the Church of England. The monarch is not in a position to either determine theological and spiritual matters for the Church, though clearly, as every other member of the Church of England has the right to hold opinions and beliefs on matters beyond the essentials of the core of our faith (The Canon of Scripture, The Incarnation, The Resurrection, The Holy Trinity, The Great Creeds, The Efficacy of Sacraments, The Historic Orders of Ministry).

He Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, is absolutely entitled to hold a view on the nature of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, as are we all, and in due course that view may be held by others, or not, be it the English Parliament, or The Church of England.

I am not entirely certain of how that applies to the Church of Scotland, The Church of Wales, or The Church of Ireland. My understanding is that other Churches within the Anglican Communion may hold ceremonies and practices that me be diverse according to the cultural constraints in which that operate, and subject to a mind for unity within the whole body of the communion.

 

If the Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Anglican Communion, isn't it ironic that C of E like ECUSA may be left behind by a larger number of Continuing Anglicans?

 

I don't believe that is the word I would use. The rubber band of Anglicanism that has managed to stretch so far to be one of the most encompassing and inclusive branches of Christianity appears to have been stretched beyond its limits. Some of us want to hold back and help this great vehicle of faith survive, whilst other want to keep stretching until it snaps. I think the word I might use here is tragic!