by DugahllEoghann » Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:00 pm
Well, For all that I am a strong supporter of equal rights, for the part of history we are attempting to recreate, in rulers it is not appropriate. I don't recall any historical precedents of a same-sex rulers that had their mate on the throne (we've had a gay president, but his mate was not the first spouse - he was called Aunt Fanny, and he was outside period)
So, perforce, I voted no on the proposition.
I disliked having to do that, but we are factually historical, or nothing more than LARPers. I prefer the factual history - as ugly and prejudical as it may be. This does not mean that we cannot be active and visible, but until we have documented historical precedent, I cannot (as an officer of my group) support it.
Dugahll-Eoghann