[Ansteorra] Same-Gender Consort Proposal
wenchalma at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 19 13:33:36 PDT 2012
Oh my, I can't take this anymore. My e-mail is filled with this topic. Life is about change, I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I know that there isn't much we can do about it. I will support the crown, as long as they serve the kingdom. But I don't believe this conversation is helping anyone. The SCA is composed of folks from different cultures, religions and beliefs. We will never all agree on topics, but should respect each others decisions. We are family.
From: Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com>
To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Same-Gender Consort Proposal
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Bree Flowers <evethejust at gmail.com> wrote:
>> [someone else]
>>> [someone else else, or perhaps someone #1 -- all the attributions
>>> were stripped and I can't summon the energy to check
>>>> This should be the BoD's decision and they are passing the buck.
>>>> As Lord Miles Grey pointed out, the majority of the populace is
>>>> not wanting this.
>> it was not a majority of the populace, the majority of the populace
>> never " bothered " to take the time to fill out the census in the
>> 1st place .
> Yes, and additionally, it was not the majority of the respondents
> either, just the majority of respondents with an opinion. There was
> a significant number that answered "don't care". It was the majority
> (over 50%) only among respondents from 2 kingdoms.
That's not what I see in the survey results.
To get to the survey results, go to http://sca.org/ , click on SCA
2010 Census Results to go to http://sca.org/scacensus2010/ .
For the same-sex consort issue, see under
Key Findings - Same-Gender Consorts
Summary of Results - Word document
to go to http://sca.org/scacensus2010/SameGenderConsortFindings.doc
By http://sca.org/scacensus2010/R1CorePresent.pdf , The number of
respondents was a little less than half the number of paid members
(14600 versus 31500). 83% of responders were paid members of some SCA
There was a 2% plurality against a change, but not a majority either
in favor or against: "41% of survey participants disagree with
changing the policy, 39% agree, and 21% are neutral or have no
opinion." (You can say that 62% (41+21) did not support changing the
policy, but by the same reasoning, 60% (39+21) did not support keeping
the current policy.)
The "neutral" choice was consistent at 21% +-2% across all kingdoms.
There were two kingdoms that had a majority *against* changing the
existing policy (57% and 53%), and six more above 45%. None had a
majority *for* changing it, though three were above 45%. The
breakdown among kingdoms is pretty close to what a USAnian would
expect based on red/blue states. I suspect the mean was so close to
even because the more positive kingdoms have a higher population:
http://sca.org/scacensus2010/R1CorePresent.pdf says, for example, East
has 3534 paid SCA Inc members and An Tir 3445, where Gleann Abhann has
only 968 and Ansteorra 1572.
I'll note that poll numbers in some issues about gay people have been
changing radically recently, especially in just the last couple of
years. Most notably, for gay marriage, the 50%-45% opinion split has
flipped in just the last two years, with 2.5% changing their opinions
to support gay marriage each year for the last 8 years (
) However, the SCA doesn't have a newer survey than the 2010 general.
>> but since this issue could wind up becoming another expensive legal
I think that highly unlikely. I tried to look up anti-discrimination
laws. So far as I can tell at a quick glance, they tend to deal with
employment and housing, not regulating private groups. In particular,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale appears to
preclude such a case, as the US Supreme Court overturned a New Jersey
state law on the basis of Federal freedom of association protections.
However, the California
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases (California Supreme
Court) identified sexual orientation as a "suspect class for purposes
of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution", so
that reasoning might be applied to the Federal Constitution ... in 15
years or so.
Also, if the SCA started to get in trouble over a discrimination case,
I suspect the Board would simply react fast to change the policy.
This in contrast to the child-molestation lawsuit: in that case, the
SCA could not control it after the fact.
Dannet de Linccolne
-- Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com
Ansteorra mailing list
Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
More information about the Ansteorra