DBWI: We had had straight, married political leaders before now?

[vorkosigan]

You may have seen Iceland has just elected the world's first married , straight Prime Minister.

Now, ever since Emperor Hadrian nominated Antinous as his successor, it's been a tradition in the West that full-time political leaders should be gay - or celibate and straight. That's how it's been with all the major governments, and of course the papacy. It's meant that instead of something desperately uncertain like a 'hereditary monarchy' (I'm not making that phrase up - there have actually been quite a few of these in the Far East!) , Emperors, Empresses, Kings and Queens have always nominated their successors - and even in the few republics we have in the world, their leaders have always been gay or celibate, so that they can concentrate on their duties without the distraction of a family.

I know that Iceland is a very small nation, but surely having a family is going to distract her from running the country properly. Won't she be at home with her husband and children when she should be meeting with Prime Minister Mandelson to discuss fishing quotas or something?


How would it have affected history if this had happened earlier and become widespread, say a hundred years ago?

And does anyone think this could work elsewhere now ? Even in America? After all, the great majority of American voters are in straight families. But is it reasonable to think for example, that the Republicans or Democrats could pick a straight married candidate to follow on from Larry Craig in 2012? I know it's a tall order, it would have to be someone who is no higher at the moment than a state senator or mayor of a small town.

Unless there's a closet straight in congress ....

[carlton_bach]

This is going to take a lot of time to change. You have to bear in mind most people are firmnly wedded to the idea that politicians are a better sort of person. The thought that someone who is 'just like us' - someone who likes barbecueing in the garden and spending time with the children instead of reading thick books and discussing complex problems, someone who was not dedicated every moment of his life to intellectual or martial pursuits, just a regular guy or gal - is stioll ridiculous to most of us. Fairly or unfairly (and some of my younger professors in uni were married and parents, so it's not like it really makes you stupid), marriage is associated with mediocrity. Iceland is an exception, and I would frankly argue that even in so laid-back a country (not to mention that their Althing has always allowed married householders to hold office), it would not have been possible without the crisis.

[vorkosigan]

Yeah, maybe you are right. Perhaps the world's not ready for this.

I know it's been tried once or twice before - I mean, look at Henry Tudor in England in 15-something. He asked the Pope to grant him a divorce to he can ascend the throne, the Pope refused, so Henry sets up his own "Church of England" and grabs power.

As an incentive to the priests to stay on his side, he allowed them to get married - maybe that's why the Church collapsed after 50 years and we all went back to being good Catholics again.