The Board has officially adopted the proposal to establish an inquiry commission into the Crown List entry policy. We now shift our focus to monitoring the commission membership selection and ensuring the investigation remains on schedule for the October deadline.
April 15, 2015
Final supporters
The full text of the petition is at:https://www.dropbox.com/s/los1vam97clp0it/Board%20Agenda%20Petition.pdf
Board letter summary:
Proposed, that the Board establish a commission to conduct inquiry into the three areas detailed below. Given the serious nature of the organization’s legal exposure, it is proposed that the investigation be urgent and timely with reports due back in six months (at the October board meeting), and request for membership comment begun immediately after the current board meeting.
Discussion and Documentation: The members of the Inspirational Equality Movement request that the Board initiate a fact finding commission to determine whether the SCA policy permitting Crowns to exclude same sex pairs from Crown List entry may be in conflict with existing modern law and prevailing SCA opinion. In order to protect the SCA from vulnerability on moral, ethical, and legal grounds, we strongly urge that this fact-finding commission consider evidence from three important sources:
1. Moral grounds: We submit that SCA populace opinion no longer supports a default stance of non-inclusion for same sex pairs, and ask that the following proposed revision be submitted for public comment:
a. Current wording
b. Proposed revision
2. Ethical grounds: evidence from the SCA history of the past two years demonstrates that the current wording of corpora conveys a “default stance” of non-inclusion which has caused demonstrable confusion and distress, representing an ethical breach of faith between the organization and its members.
a. Two incidences:
i. Ansteorra (failure to publish IE allowance in List rules)
ii. Drachenwald (default to “ground rule” to inform same sex pair exclusion)
b. Demonstration that no harm from hypothetical concerns regarding “gaming the system” has occurred
i. Documentation of same sex pairs who have entered Crown Lists
3. Legal grounds: current state, federal, and national laws regarding equal access and non-discrimination
a. U.S. Federal definition of discrimination
b. California Unruh Act
c. U.S. state laws governing prohibition on discrimination for non-profit clubs
d. British Equalities Law
e. Canadian Law
f. Australian Law
We, the undersigned members of the Society for Creative Anachronism, add our names in support of the Agenda proposal request by the Inspirational Equality advocacy group.
Updates
March 24, 2015
Legal counsel is currently reviewing the proposal to ensure the commission structure aligns with our formal request. I am preparing a briefing document to submit to the board members prior to their next assembly.
Reached 100 supporters
March 24, 2015
8 Comments
ABOUT TIME. Keeping this outdated rule on the books is just asking for a lawsuit we dont need.
Its time to bring our policies into the 21st century. Really hoping the board actually listens to the membership on this one.
And the current crown (Lochlan and Michelle) have revised Kingdom Law to explicitly allow it, which would require subsequent crown to either issue an edict or change kingdom law again to prevent it.
I'm curious why Ansteorra is listed in this? AFAIK, every crown of Ansteorra has allowed IE since the BoD revised it's language.
Share to Facebook to spread the word! In the about field, you can say:"A petition to show your support for getting IE on the next SCA board meeting agenda"
Your Majesty, Ansteorra is mentioned because of the confusion that surrounded the admittance of Master Lucais and Sir Asoph into Your most recent Crown List (last Fall). This petition is to highlight the fact that if Corpora did *not* have the following wording in its policy, then such confusion could (& would be) a thing of the past. Original wording that was asked to be struck included removing the last 4 words of this policy "1. Each competitor in a Royal Lists must be fighting for a prospective consort of the opposite gender." Instead of removing "of the opposite gender", The BOD decided to make things *really* confusing and amended the policy to: "1. Each competitor in a Royal Lists must be fighting for a prospective consort of the opposite gender _unless the Crown has elected to permit a competitor to fight for a prospective consort of the same sex._" This basically requires each & every Crown to explicitly state that Same-Gender pairs are allowed (pending Kingdom Law). Which is partially what caused the confusion in Ansteorra (especially when things were posted prior to being confirmed with Your Majesties). Now that Ansteorran Kingdom Law reflects IE (many thanks for that to You & Your Beautiful Queen!), this is no longer an issue. But it is still a highlight of why the BOD really needs to change Corpora, instead of leaving it at a Kingdom level (after all, the next King & Queen of Ansteorra could easily change Kingdom Law to remove inclusive lists). I hope that clarifies things a bit? In Service & Friendship, Baroness Eowyth (Calontir)
As the current Crown of Ansteorra I am curious as to why Ansteorra is listed in the petition? We as a Kingdom have allowed same sex couples to fight in crown since the BoD made the announcement by way of Royal Edict. Also, during my current reign My Queen and I changed Kingdom Law to specifically allow same sex couples to fight in Our crown list. We had a Knight fight for one of his dearest friends in our last Crown list. We have not turned away anyone on the basis of sexual orientation ever that I am aware of. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Lochlan Rex Ansteorra [email protected] MKA Brandon McDermott
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
The Board has officially adopted the proposal to establish an inquiry commission into the Crown List entry policy. We now shift our focus to monitoring the commission membership selection and ensuring the investigation remains on schedule for the October deadline.
April 15, 2015
Final supporters
The full text of the petition is at:https://www.dropbox.com/s/los1vam97clp0it/Board%20Agenda%20Petition.pdf
Board letter summary:
Proposed, that the Board establish a commission to conduct inquiry into the three areas detailed below. Given the serious nature of the organization’s legal exposure, it is proposed that the investigation be urgent and timely with reports due back in six months (at the October board meeting), and request for membership comment begun immediately after the current board meeting.
Discussion and Documentation: The members of the Inspirational Equality Movement request that the Board initiate a fact finding commission to determine whether the SCA policy permitting Crowns to exclude same sex pairs from Crown List entry may be in conflict with existing modern law and prevailing SCA opinion. In order to protect the SCA from vulnerability on moral, ethical, and legal grounds, we strongly urge that this fact-finding commission consider evidence from three important sources:
1. Moral grounds: We submit that SCA populace opinion no longer supports a default stance of non-inclusion for same sex pairs, and ask that the following proposed revision be submitted for public comment:
a. Current wording
b. Proposed revision
2. Ethical grounds: evidence from the SCA history of the past two years demonstrates that the current wording of corpora conveys a “default stance” of non-inclusion which has caused demonstrable confusion and distress, representing an ethical breach of faith between the organization and its members.
a. Two incidences:
i. Ansteorra (failure to publish IE allowance in List rules)
ii. Drachenwald (default to “ground rule” to inform same sex pair exclusion)
b. Demonstration that no harm from hypothetical concerns regarding “gaming the system” has occurred
i. Documentation of same sex pairs who have entered Crown Lists
3. Legal grounds: current state, federal, and national laws regarding equal access and non-discrimination
a. U.S. Federal definition of discrimination
b. California Unruh Act
c. U.S. state laws governing prohibition on discrimination for non-profit clubs
d. British Equalities Law
e. Canadian Law
f. Australian Law
We, the undersigned members of the Society for Creative Anachronism, add our names in support of the Agenda proposal request by the Inspirational Equality advocacy group.
Updates
March 24, 2015
Legal counsel is currently reviewing the proposal to ensure the commission structure aligns with our formal request. I am preparing a briefing document to submit to the board members prior to their next assembly.
Reached 100 supporters
March 24, 2015
8 Comments
Doesnt make sense to exclude people based on who they love. We are better than that.
ABOUT TIME. Keeping this outdated rule on the books is just asking for a lawsuit we dont need.
Its time to bring our policies into the 21st century. Really hoping the board actually listens to the membership on this one.
And the current crown (Lochlan and Michelle) have revised Kingdom Law to explicitly allow it, which would require subsequent crown to either issue an edict or change kingdom law again to prevent it.
I'm curious why Ansteorra is listed in this? AFAIK, every crown of Ansteorra has allowed IE since the BoD revised it's language.
Share to Facebook to spread the word! In the about field, you can say:"A petition to show your support for getting IE on the next SCA board meeting agenda"
Your Majesty, Ansteorra is mentioned because of the confusion that surrounded the admittance of Master Lucais and Sir Asoph into Your most recent Crown List (last Fall). This petition is to highlight the fact that if Corpora did *not* have the following wording in its policy, then such confusion could (& would be) a thing of the past. Original wording that was asked to be struck included removing the last 4 words of this policy "1. Each competitor in a Royal Lists must be fighting for a prospective consort of the opposite gender." Instead of removing "of the opposite gender", The BOD decided to make things *really* confusing and amended the policy to: "1. Each competitor in a Royal Lists must be fighting for a prospective consort of the opposite gender _unless the Crown has elected to permit a competitor to fight for a prospective consort of the same sex._" This basically requires each & every Crown to explicitly state that Same-Gender pairs are allowed (pending Kingdom Law). Which is partially what caused the confusion in Ansteorra (especially when things were posted prior to being confirmed with Your Majesties). Now that Ansteorran Kingdom Law reflects IE (many thanks for that to You & Your Beautiful Queen!), this is no longer an issue. But it is still a highlight of why the BOD really needs to change Corpora, instead of leaving it at a Kingdom level (after all, the next King & Queen of Ansteorra could easily change Kingdom Law to remove inclusive lists). I hope that clarifies things a bit? In Service & Friendship, Baroness Eowyth (Calontir)
As the current Crown of Ansteorra I am curious as to why Ansteorra is listed in the petition? We as a Kingdom have allowed same sex couples to fight in crown since the BoD made the announcement by way of Royal Edict. Also, during my current reign My Queen and I changed Kingdom Law to specifically allow same sex couples to fight in Our crown list. We had a Knight fight for one of his dearest friends in our last Crown list. We have not turned away anyone on the basis of sexual orientation ever that I am aware of. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Lochlan Rex Ansteorra [email protected] MKA Brandon McDermott
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
Doesnt make sense to exclude people based on who they love. We are better than that.