Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Remove the four words!

The SCA Board of Directors has come up with a proposal for addressing the issue of same-gender consorts in Crown lists.

The proposal would change this:

Each competitor in a Royal Lists must be fighting for a consort of the opposite gender.


"Each competitor in a Royal Lists must be fighting for a consort of the opposite gender.  Crowns may permit entry into the Royal Lists by same-gender couples."

My yardstick for evaluation is" "Does this give those of us who support 'Inspirational Equality' what we want?"

My answer is: "No."

It certainly delays equality and honestly doesn't make sense.

As far as I know every set of royals has the ability to control its own lists already and can exclude as they well. (Correct me if I am wrong, but that's my understanding. I know it is the case in the East.).

What sense does it make to have a law then say, "But exceptions can be made?"

To me, much of the point of this is having the SCA say it is not prejudiced against people who are partners with people of the same sex.

This does not do it.

I see it as a cop-out, a way to shift responsibility.

I am going to find it very, very hard to support anything other than striking the words, "of the opposite gender."

Remove The Four Words!


  1. I'm not a SCAdian but I am a wordsmith, and I agree. The rewrite only sounds like adding a bunch of superfluous words to no real effect. Striking the four words is to the point and sounds far less offensive.

  2. The crown can exclude people from the list who would otherwise be permitted to enter. I don't know that they can allow people, who the rules would currently exclude, to enter. This allows them the option.

  3. No, they cannot allow same-sex consorts now.

    And, yes it does allow it.

    But that's kind of like asking states to vote on same-gender marriage.

    The SCA, as an organization, should not endorse prejudice.

    1. See... I think that's part of the problem with this debate. People are looking at pairings for crown as something on par with modern marriage. Realistically we are talking about who's going to be your partner for a year long pairing in a game.

  4. Master Liam, would you care to be the Monarch henceforth known as a bigot for refusing a homosexual couple from competing in Crown?
    The conversation about has gotten ugly enough in the last few months. Any Reigning Royals who did not exercise their legal ability to make an exception would lead to the same hateful statements being reintroduced, with so much narrower a focus.

    I think it's a poor change, for similar reasons, but going in the completely opposite direction.

  5. I hate it when you call me master Liam . . . ;)

    Honestly, Vels, I believe some (many?) *would* say no, and their kingdoms would back them up.

    In my opinion, for every person who vilified them, two would back them up.

    The vilifiers would be louder, yes.

    But many of us who support same-sex consorts are specifically *not* lashing out at those who do not.

    But we do agree, this is a bad plan.

  6. As far as I can tell the additional sentence does absolutely nothing. So long as the first sentence contains the words must and opposite, and the second sentence does not explicitly override either of those words, nothing changes. The second sentence only allows same gendered pairs to enter the lists, not to fight for someone of the same gender nor to name as consort a same gendered person.