Sunday, February 23, 2014

No Gay Queens in UK; Winter Olypmics Poll

No Gay Queens in UK

This March there is a new marriage act going into effect for same sex couples in England and Wales. In doing so roughly 700 years of law is being scrutinized thoroughly in order to prevent any future issues/confusion that may arise with same sex marriage. (I once posted about a law maker in Hawaii who really took this seriously.) From the way it sounds, the issues range in a variety of practical ways. One in particular is a proposed amendment that will not allow the male spouse of a gay King to ever become the Queen.

Additionally, a clause in the Act according gay and heterosexual marriage the same legal rights will not apply to the rights of anyone 'who marries, or who is married to, the King Regnant, to the title of Queen' nor will the male spouses of Dukes, Earls and other male peers be called Duchess, Countess or Lady.

A total of 36 Acts dating back to 1859 and a further 67 pieces of legislation dating back 729 years are expected to be amended. The proposals will be debated by MPs as early as next week. 

You can read more here.

I'm not sure what to make of this yet. I've read bios about many royal men who were allegedly "bisexual." But it sounds to me that if you're a royal, you're gay, and you want to marry someone of the same sex you're basically royally screwed.

Like with US politicians and film stars, UK royalty with regard to anything gay is always a well kept secret. Indirectly, it's a slap in the face and it only promotes shame. What if Prince William were gay? Would that mean he could never admit it in public, or take a male spouse? And this doesn't just happen in the UK. It's all over the world.


Winter Olympics Poll

There's a poll at Gay Star News that asks who has been watching the winter Olympics. I took it and I voted that I've been boycotting it completely. For me, it's not a gay issue. It's a human rights issue that involves everyone. According to the results of the poll most people who read Gay Star News agree with me. 47% have been boycotting, and 18% are not watching for "other reasons." A few times I almost broke down and watched, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

You can check that poll out here. It's on the sidebar and you'll have to scroll down a little.

Of course this is all personal choice and everyone is free to do what they please, but I do find it interesting that some of the loudest so-called liberal left-wing activists I know on social media have been watching and posting about it all week. These are the same people who call for gun control and don't hesitate to offend anyone with their vituperative left-wing diatribes. And here they are supporting an event that is directly related to one of the most serious human rights issues we have faced in the world since World War II.

Just an observation, and why I rarely get political.






 


8 comments:

GUY PAUL WAYNE said...

since I'm such a fan of your writing; I respect everything you say....Pres. Obama did protest and send representatives like Brian Boitano and Billie Jean King; and maybe like Hitler's Olympic's where a black American made the biggest splash; a boycott may have encouraged Putin more....

ryan field said...

The President did make a strong statement, which I fully respect. In many ways I would imagine his hands were tied and he did the best he could. I have been following what has been happening in Russia for a long time and I have read things that range from wanting gays put in ovens to sentenced to prison. What's is happening there trumps sports or anything else for me because it's a human rights issue that is not going to get better after the Olympics are over. I'm also not a fan of boycotts as a rule, but I just could not watch what was happening in good conscience knowing gay people in Russia are living in fear of their lives. It's just something I can't do. I don't think anyone or anything affects Putin. He does what he wants.

Shelagh said...

Re: Gay Queens - I don't read that article as saying that a member of the royal family couldn't marry someone of the same sex, I read it as saying that if they do, the male spouse would not be able to take the title of Queen. I don't think it's intended to be homophobic, merely practical. It's a restriction that has been applied elsewhere, eg, Charles and Camilla. If I remember correctly, there are restrictions on what titles she can have because she is divorced. It's why she's known as the Duchess of Cornwall, not Princess of Wales, like Diana was. At least Charles didn't have to abdicate to marry his divorcee, like Edward VIII did in the 30s.

It would be interesting to see the Church of England's take on a royal gay marriage, given that the monarch is also the head of the C of E. There's also the issue that any royal in line for the throne needs the monarch's permission to marry at all. Prince Harry has no more right to marry Joe Bloggs than he does to marry Jane Bloggs if the queen doesn't approve. There are lots of restrictions on royal marriages, eg, no catholics. Not allowing a male royal spouse to be called Queen is only one :)

ryan field said...

I think you're right. A lot of the details they've been examining are to keep things more organized in the future. But I doubt we'll see a gay royal in our lifetimes. I could be wrong, but I don't think they're ready for that yet.

Shelagh said...

I don't think we'll see one either, mainly because the monarch is also the head of the church, which opposes gay marriage. That would be a political and religious hot potato! As an republican atheist, I won't be losing much sleep over it ;)

ryan field said...

Unless Prince Harry really shocks us all. But that's only me and wishful thinking. He is one good looking man :)

GUY PAUL WAYNE said...

recent events make everything you say more and more relevant....we should have boycotted the games

ryan field said...

It's a shame. I'm watching what's happening in The Ukraine now, too.