Same-Gender Consort Proposal

[Tim McDaniel]

The Board's request for comments just hit my kingdom's mailing list.
Herewith my comment. (Hrm, I just realized that I got so wrapped up
in language lawyering that I forgot to tell them that I like the idea
of allowing same-sex consorts!)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:31:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com>
To: comm...@sca.org
Subject: Same-Gender Consort Proposal

I am Daniel de Lincoln, a Pelican from Ansteorra. I was Clerk to
Laurel Sovereign of Arms for one tenture, and I have been in the SCA
College of Arms since the late 1990s. I am more of a language lawyer
than most heralds. This constitutes your only warning.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, e...@sca.org wrote:
> Current language: Each competitor in a Royal Lists must be fighting for a
> consort of
> the opposite gender.

To be precise, that's missing the word "prospective" from the version
in the Governing Documents at http://sca.org/docs/pdf/govdocs.pdf ,
which says

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

Copy and paste is your friend.

> Proposed Language:
> 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.

This proposal is worded as badly as any proposal I've seen. I'm not
even sure what you're trying to legislate. I urge its rejection and
complete rewrite.

Read absolutely literally, to make each sentence true, it permits
"entry into the Royal Lists by same-gender couples" (for example, the
lovers Robert and Edwin can be combattants), but each "must be
fighting for a consort of the opposite gender" (Robert must fight for
Elizabeth, say, and Edwin must fight for Anne). That, of course, is
hardly a change from current law and custom: it would shock most
SCAdians if a Crown were to bar a gay person who was fighting for
someone of the opposite sex.

Read slightly less literally, interpreting "same-gender couples" as "a
person fighting for a consort of the same gender", they're
contradictory. The second sentence says that Crowns may do something,
but the first sentence expressly forbids it.

Thinking more about "entry *into the Royal Lists* by same-gender
couples": the consort is very rarely *in the Royal Lists*. Are you
trying to say that a person may fight for someone of the same sex only
if they're both entrants in the lists? I cannot think of any reason
for that. Worse, one objection I've seen raised to the proposal is
that two strong fighters of one household, who are not inspired by
each other but instead simply want to game the system to increase
their chances of ruling, might fight for each other. (I don't see the
point of such a strategy, but that's an objection I've seen.) You
appear to be mandating only the most objectionable form. If that's
what you're trying to express, I am strongly against it.

Can a kingdom make a law on the subject? As I read it, apparently
not. "Crowns may permit" seems to give a right to the sitting Crown,
like Corpora says that a Crown may suspend any kingdom officer or
sanction people for cause in writing without mention of restriction by
kingdom law.

Enough metaphorical reading of entrails. What are you trying to SAY?
Each combattant must fight for exactly one consort; by default, the
consort must be of the opposite sex, but there's a kingdom option?
Then just SAY that.

"Each competitor in Royal Lists must be fighting for one prospective
consort. Unless otherwise provided by kingdom law and custom, the
consort must be of the opposite gender of the competitor."

Let's leave aside more unusual cases of someone choosing to fight for
someone non-human (an average dog would be an improvement on some
consorts), or what "gender" means when applied to someone transgender
/ transsexual.

Danel de Lyncoln
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Chris Zakes]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 05:35:07 +0000 (UTC), an orbital mind-control
laser caused tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) to write:

>The Board's request for comments just hit my kingdom's mailing list.
>Herewith my comment. (Hrm, I just realized that I got so wrapped up
>in language lawyering that I forgot to tell them that I like the idea
>of allowing same-sex consorts!)

I'm not opposed in principle, but I'm a little uncomfortable with it.
It'd certainly play merry hell with Ansteorra's traditional Queen's
Champion tournament.

-Tivar Moondragon
Ansteorra
--

A politician may be distinguished from a statesman in that the former is,
unfortunately, not dead.

Adapted from "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce

[David J. Hughes]

On 2/1/2012 7:17 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 05:35:07 +0000 (UTC), an orbital mind-control
> laser caused tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) to write:
>
>> The Board's request for comments just hit my kingdom's mailing list.
>> Herewith my comment. (Hrm, I just realized that I got so wrapped up
>> in language lawyering that I forgot to tell them that I like the idea
>> of allowing same-sex consorts!)
>
> I'm not opposed in principle, but I'm a little uncomfortable with it.
> It'd certainly play merry hell with Ansteorra's traditional Queen's
> Champion tournament.
>
> -Tivar Moondragon
> Ansteorra

Again, not opposed in principle.
The possibility does present some language problems.

For Consideration:

The victor is the Sovereign, regardless of any other title.
King or Queen, depending on Gender, would be the most likely title used.

The one who has inspired the victor is the Sovereign's Consort.

That would be the reality, everything else is terminology, and could be
highly affected by the individual case:
Royal Consort
King's Brother
Queen's Sister

Etc.

(Having two individuals with the title Queen just leads to confusion,
while a male Queen opens the door to far to many vile "jokes".)

David Gallowglass
Ansteorra