MPs look set to debate a change in the law to allow royals in same-sex relationships to marry or be in civil partnerships and for their children to be recognised as the heir to the throne.
Parliament is due to pass legislation shortly to allow for the first child of Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge to rule as monarch regardless of whether they are a boy or a girl. Now Labour MP Paul Flynn is gathering support for an amendment that will extend the protection to include the eventuality that the child is gay or lesbian.
If accepted, the change to the law could lead to the reign of an openly gay or lesbian king or queen and for their same-sex partner to be recognised as consort. Any children born to the couple through artificial insemination or surrogacy would succeed to the throne so long as the couple are in a same-sex marriage or civil partnership. Current inheritance laws mean that if the couple had a child through adoption, they would not join the line of succession for the throne and it is not clear MPs would seek to change this.
12 Comments
King Anonymous the 1st.
Queen in every sense of the word.
Britons will never agree to this.
Which one would be the king, or would they take turns.
They'll both be kings. Because they're both guys. Duh.
john: Which one would be the king, or would they take turns.
LOL - the one not wearing the high heels. Now if both wanted to wear high heels that could be a problem.
King and Queen is such an important position, too, with a lot of power. They practically run the country. And to think, a leaderless country! Because of SSM!
We need to Teach Natural Law and
to Defend Natural Law. And to teach that natural marriage between a male and female is an Unalienable Right of mankind.
The religous theory for defense of
marriage will not win in the courts or legislatures.
Among the assets attributed to the Royals is the seabed floor surrounding Britannia.
The MP's serve at the pleasure of the Royals and are not empowered to direct the line of succession; only the peoples government.
The King or Queen of England isn't the head of the country and they sure don't rule it anymore. In large part, the title is just that, a title.
The King would be whichever one was in line, not the consort (partner). All this would do is make the partnership a legally recognized one in order for any children born of a biological tie to either partner.
You people love to make a big deal of nothing.
Children having their right to a mother and father through natural marriage is "making a big deal out of nothing" to these extremists. Extremists who view children as nothing more than a pet, bag or shoes.
That's awfully libelous of you, M. jones, to suggest that gays view children as pets.
I'd like to know why the government is in the child adoption 'business'. I suspect it is for similar (rational) 'reasons' the government is in the 'marriage' business.
From State to State, the US government has to have some conventions. Marriage used to be simple and straightforward. But modern life believes it can become always (eternally) more and more complicated. Now even kingship or queenship 'has' to be genderless. Blood-relation would become insignificant. This is what happens when the circular reasoning of the SSm crowd is attempted, in practice. Too much imagination, impractical.
One example about how States have to have some laws in-common has to do with child-support. They'll hunt you down. Write a false personal check and you can get away by moving to another State, but don't get behind on child-support. . .
Government has made an exception (for a Public Interest) from having States be autonomous in this respect - and again, it has to do with children (who have rights, once they made it out of the womb).
Since government promotes out-of-wedlock births through Welfare benefits, and promotes divorce through no-fault divorce (punishing the person who was not at fault in the marriage), causing great grief and mental sickness, government then has to patch up the damage, insisting others (not the government) pay the total child support. In doing so, government adds bureaucracy at high cost, to enforce these patch-up laws.
When will government learn? Not the crazy Liberals, who think money 'grows on trees' (extra can be simply printed, as needed - and there's always an excuse as to why). . . as if we were stupid.
The point is the Congress can make exceptions in making laws (one exception 'gay' people want, for instance, is to get Higher Scrutiny favoring them when they go to court for SSm).
With regards to federal (DOMA) DefenseOfMarriageAct it purposefully gave financial and automatic privileges to opposite-sex couples that marry by the State. This exception was not an oversight (done in animus). It was purposefully done. Again, the exception to the rule has to do with children. . . because government doesn't want to support them financially. This is always the bottom line.
Some day, Congress will admit there is an insignificant difference between a fetus, 5 minutes before birth, and a USA born citizen. Only a crazy Liberal can 'split hairs' and imagine there's significant difference. And again, government will avoid great sorrow by providing equality for the yet unborn citizen. I mean, we give Amnesty to ignorant wet-backs. Certainly we can give rights to the US unborn someday. It is simply logical, and uncomplicated.