Pee on my leg and tell me it's raining . . .

[liamstliam]

I am trying really hard not to be critical of the SCA's Board of Directors, but this sure reads like "It's a done deal," even though they say it's not.

*****
Sending proposed changes to Corpora out for commentary is part of the required process for changes to our governing documents.  Proposed changes are not a ‘done deal’ at that point in the

Comments

[silme]

It probably will be mundane law that forces changes here. I brought findings from the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission to the Grand Council, and whilst some people there disagreed with what the representative told me, there's a chance that the SCA is in breach of UK law because whilst we allow opposite gender couples who are lovers, legal partners, spouses etc. to fight for each other, we don't permit same gender couples in the same situation to fight for each other. They see it as unequal opportunties.

They're fine with the fact that some people will never be good enough fighters to win or that a person in a wheelchair probably won't win Crown. There are exemptions for sporting events. As long as we make reasonable adjustments -- ie, the fighter with asthma can get a break occasionally and doesn't have to fight every bout back to back etc., we're fine. But they weren't so sure about not permitting same gender couples to fight for each other. If it were only opposite gender people who are just friends fighting for each other, we'd be fine. (If they happened to fall in love and get married, that's okay. That happened later. :)

It would have to go to a judge, as such issues do in the UK.

[gwyneth1362]

I'm not an attorney, and certainly not familiar with UK law - but I have seen this idea posted in other places for other countries. I am not trying to argue, just understand - and my question is this:

Same gender couples can fight for each other in any tournament except for Crown (as far as I know). In the case of Crown Tournament, what makes the requirement of having an opposite-gendered consort different from a requirement that you have certain types of armour in order to fight; or carry a particular banner; or fight with a single weapon? I don't know that any discrimination law would say, for example, that we can't have two-handed only weapons tourneys because people with only one arm couldn't fight in them.

And again, I am not picking or trying to fight, but really trying to understand.

[silme]

They said it was lack of equal opportunities/access, considering that Crowns have very high prestige and privileges. A straight couple has access to this prestige; a queer couple does not.

I did explain to them *, btw, that being Crown is a lot of work and can cost some money. They said that didn't matter. There's prestige and privilege that comes with the office -- and straight couples may access it. Gay couples may not.

Regarding the two-handed sword argument, there are exemptions regarding sports in the law. However, we're talking about consorts here -- choosing the person you wish to be your reigning partner. That's not the sport.

The same goes for the banners or certain types of armour. That doesn't concern any of the protected groups in the UK: race, sexual orientation, age, race, religion, transgender and disability. As stated, disability is covered as there are exemption for sports, and the same goes for race.

It's quite clear that in many countries, should we say that women couldn't fight or that Asians couldn't fight, for example, everyone agrees that it's discrimination. Sexual orientation is less clear in some countries. However, the EHRC seemed to feel that because we permit straight couples to enter, we are denying access to gay couples.

In Drachenwald, a lesbian knight already was told she could not fight for her legal partner in Coronet. She's pretty much dropped out of the SCA, alas. She did not want to fight for anyone else; she only wanted to fight for her wife. Had she been straight and married to a man, she could have fought for him, though.

*I've been an SCA member since 1979 and have been a kingdom seneschal (Outlands).

[gwyneth1362]

Thank you - that answers my question and makes a great deal of sense. I appreciate it.

[silme]

Oops -- I just saw a mistake in what I wrote -- I typed 'race' and I should have typed 'age'.