Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Quakers call for equal marriage in address to the Queen

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What a welcome and uplifting change from the mean spirited vindictiveness this issue has exposed.

  2. Well done to our Friends..

    Let’s hope the Queen listened!

  3. If the Queen starts commenting on marriage equality, whether for or against it, she’ll find herself living in a republic quicker than you can say “royal prerogative”.

    1. She doesn’t need to say anything publicly to let her feelings on the matter be known to the right people.

    2. She didn’t say anything. She let them say it! This is as close as the queen can ever get to showing political support for something, so good for her!

  4. What a nice group of people. They gave us the use of their meeting houses in towns across Britain when no one else would rent us space. Now they stand up for us again out of the pure goodness of their hearts.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Mar 2012, 11:53pm

      In essence, they are the true Christians in every way.

      1. When I was “on parade” in London in the late 80′s with my hand made sign “Quaker Dykes” it was astonishing how people would come up to you and say “The Quakers are the only people who will let us use their premises.” or similar.

        It was very gratifying at one level but also very painful in terms of how much rejection people were experiencing.

      2. less than half would define or be defined by other card carrying “Christians” as “Christians” although I would accept that this would seem to be more consiste with the Jesus of Nazereth described in the “Gospels” who forgot to mention the most crucial evil of all “homosexuality”.

        Can you imagine the trouble he got from Dad when he got to heaven?

        “It wasnt enough I forgot to put it into the Ten Commandments but you forgot to mention it in 3 whole years of ministry?”

        ;-)

    2. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 15 Apr 2012, 1:21am

      The Edinburgh Liberal Jewish Community used to hold services in the local Quaker Meeting House. The ELJC is a small community which does not as yet own its own premises, so it meets in various venues. I still find it shocking that the Quakers and Unitarians will happily let them meet there, but that the Edinburgh Orthodox synagogue will not. This is because the Orthodox synagogue does not approve of such Liberal practices as letting women sit with men, letting women take services, interfaith families, support for LGBT members (and now a gay rabbi) and so forth. Give me the Quakers any day!

  5. Another Hannah 27 Mar 2012, 9:54pm

    No doubt about it, they are one of the few English traditions with any worth and merit. Doubtless that means they will be regarded as no value and allowed to vanish. They aren’t the force they were.

    1. All churches are on the decline and full of oldies but the Quakers’ attitudes is a far more modern approach to how we live today and personally if I was wanting to join a church then the Quakers would probably be on top of my list..

      So on reflection I think the Quakers are more likely to flourish than other religious orgs since they are willing to evolve.

      1. Another Hannah 27 Mar 2012, 10:09pm

        Bit strange with the beliefs though, historically Quakers should address the queen as “Hello Liz” since they are supposed tyo say thee and thou to anybody. Quakers have believed in equality since about the mid sixteen hundreds when they were formed by George Fox etc….certainly equal right for women about 250 years before emancipation in this country. Doesn’t seem really to be doing them harm the way bigotry is in the RC and C of E!!!!!!!

        1. That’s right and apparently some Quakers didn’t approve of the fact that they didn’t just say “hello Liz” but thankfully the headline is the Quakers addressed the Queen about marriage equality and not the Quakers insulted the Queen by calling her “Liz”. Perhaps it’s their way of evolving and trying to take the opportunity to get their balanced views heard over that of the CofE and RC…

          1. New Aussie 28 Mar 2012, 7:08am

            Hmmmm. Quakers do not traditionally show deference but we have always and will always show respect to all people, including monarchs such as Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor ;)

        2. @New Aussie: and we wouldn’t dream of using the term “Mrs”, she is equal before God and it is Quaker who declined to do “hat duty” to King Charles II but sensible discussions were had the Quakers could not in good conscience remove their hats in front of the King but as they walked through the door into the “Royal Presence” in a courtier removed their hats… conscience was preserved and the King shown no disrespect, the disrespect he might understand by the failure to do so.

          1. we certainly don’t do “titles” and discriminatory ones at that…it is far from equal even if you do “do” titles to require women to identify their marital status and not men and of course since lesbians may not marry, we can neither be married nor unmarried.

            Testimony to equality no Mr or Ms (Mistress is the *correct* and equal form in Old English) and absolutely no Miss or Mrs = the possession of a man either father or husband. Marriage is in fact the transfer of women as property from one man to another!

    2. Actually, at 200,000 members Britain Yearly Meeting is actually about the same size as it was 300 years ago. We have always been small in number but punching well above our weight! We have been at the forefront of nearly every human rights issue in the UK and still are in that position. So I would say we certainly ARE the force we were.

      1. Hear, hear… and very eccentric in places. Signed up “members” of the Religious Society of the Friends of Truth are about 18,000 in the UK and declining slightly. That figure does not include “attenders” not fully signed up or children…who come under the care of the Quaker Meeting but are not forced into something they cannot understand, simply educated according to our history and traditions until they can choose for themselves.

        For a community of 18,000, Id say we are packing on hell of a punch!

  6. I wonder what the loyal addresses were from the other religious organisation!

  7. Thank God there is still one Christian religion that still is loving and helpful and not trying to destroy LGBT people like these so call Christian are doing today http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-becker/nom-documents-race-baiting_b_1382267.html

  8. Just a thought:
    Having the mental ill religious who believe in illusions – god, virgin births, walking on water, evil apples, virgins as gifts in heaven – on our side is not such a great idea. We don’t go to mental instuitions to cajole the patients to support us while we support them in their mental illness, so why do we want those who promulgate this religious nightmare on our side. Hoping they join our fight is support of their illusion, and I for one do not wish to help anyone in their unhealthy beliefs, just so I can feel good about myself. We are strong and righteous in our own organic way- with out illusions, dreams or false beliefs, or the people who participate in it.

    1. You obviously don’t know many Quakers. The movement is open to all, whether you believe in God or not. They put more onus on personal reflection and ensuring that your actions do not harm anyone than on rigid observance to a particular text. If more religious groups were like them the world would be a far healthier place.

    2. but why do you assume these are Quaker beliefs…actually Ray they are not. We believe in that of “God” in every person and try to live our lives accordingly. To have a spiritual life is not to be “mentally ill”.

      And some might say that you were ehibiting prejudices against people who experience mental illness, that is 1/4 of the entire population. According the Quaker beliefs, there is that of “God” in every person and that is why Quakers were the first organisation to introduce the concept of hospitals to care for people with mental ill health, rather than the then practice of punishing them and mis-treating them.

  9. Good luck, but I doubt you’ll get much joy there.

  10. Darth Dacre 28 Mar 2012, 10:23am

    I hope the PM appoints a replacement that supports equality. Especially a woman, now that women bishops are allowed.

    That would be a real first for the UK, a woman Archbishop of Canterbury. MYbe we should start a petition!

    1. you dont get Quaker bishops, nor even Quaker priests since we believe in a priesthood of all believers!

  11. Allowing tiny (even if they are progressive) religious cults like the Quakers participate in discussion of LGBT CIVIL rights, means that hateful cults must also be listened to .

    It’s good that the quaker cult is accepting but really, civil marriage equality has NOTHING to do with them, and they need to switch their focus back to whatever fictional sky-fairy they worship.

    1. Again, missing out on the bigger picture.

    2. Father Dougal 28 Mar 2012, 6:59pm

      It’s just Keith, ignore him.

    3. Hi dAVID,
      Does that include Quakers who dont worship a “fictional sky-fairy” those like me who worship “that of God in every person”, the God they encounter and seek in every person?

      And there seems to be a missing link in your logic if I may say so…

      Are people who have religious beliefs (of the fictional fairy variety or otherwise) NOT entitled to political and civil activity. Quakers are not asking for religious rights, we are acting as citizens of our country addressing the Head of State in order to achieve EXACTLY the equality of CIVIC rights you (and I) deserve.

      In fact it is an important part of Quaker theology that our beliefs are of the 24/7 variety and that what we believe MUST be consistent with our actions and that we have responsibility to particpate in CIVIC life as citizens. That is why we have “packed a punch” and continue to “pack a punch” politically in complete disproportion to our size.

      That (non-violent) “punch” can be judged because this story is NEWS!

  12. The do seem like a nice organisation, if I were ever to take up a religion it would be theirs.

    Not very nice David, I get your point but they are trying to help us.

    1. “nice” the compliment from hell!

  13. Father Dougal 28 Mar 2012, 6:57pm

    So let me get this right, when we get marriage equality, we lose the right we have now to a religious ceremony for CP’s in churches that allow it?

    That doesn’t sound very fair!

    1. nope… currently (I think) it is now possible for religious organisations who already perform religious marriages (between men and women) that are legally recognised to perform religious weddings which are no marriages but become Civil Partnerships within the religious ceremony of that religious community.

      I think what teh Quakers are saying is “2 cheers for that but how about going the whole hog and declare equal CIVIL/state marriage.

      Just because the Quakers are making this statement as a religious organisation does not mean they are making it only about religious “marriage”. Quite the contrary, they/we are making a religious witness acting as citizens of this country and making a statement about what should happen in LAW to STATE marriage (not the religious sphere).

      People who wanted a religious celebration would still have to find a religious organisation who celebrate lesbian and gay relationships.

  14. In my experience the ONLY Christian denomination that actually thinks through its theology and then lives it; and certainly the only denomination worthy of respect!!!

    1. Quakers are not a Christian denomination (happily) although the Quaker story arise out of the Christian history/progression. In fact less than half of Quakers (at a rough estimate) would define themselves or be defined by other card carrying “Christians” as “Christians”.

      The central tenet of faith is that “There is that of “God” (goodness) in every person”…if you look hard enough! It follows that it is our job to look even in the most unlikely places…on the “Seek and ye shall find” principle.

      *God…however you define the term “God”

  15. Hehehe…how hilarious using a photo of two men being “married” by a man to represent the actions of a “religious community” that believes that “love” can only be done by “God” and that “we (humans) are but witnesses!

    a) Quakers dont “do” priests

    b) three men in a photo about a Church whose central religious doctrine is about “equality”

    c) this is about the law relating civil or state marriage, which isnt done by a priest either

    Ho Hum!

    heheheh…it gives us Quakers a good chuckle!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all