[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Have progressive bishops become more openly friendly?



> Would you say that the progressive Bishops have become 
> more openly friendly to LGBT issues since Lambeth and 
> are now  willing to be "out" in their support?

We don't have a clear parallel for items voted on in 2003 and in 2000, so we cannot test how
individual bishops changed.  The vote for blessings in 2000 was recorded in the House of
Bishops; the vote for 'recognizing' blessings in 2003 was a voice vote, not recorded.  It
was a clear enough majority that no one challenged it.  Some reported that few voted against 
it.

24 bishops retired after GC 2000 and before GC 2003.  21 bishops in 2003 were not bishops in
2000.  Those shifts too could affect the vote's being more positive.

95% of those who retired in the interval between conventions voted to recognize that
faithful lesbigay relations in 2000 (D039).  Only 56% of the new ordinaries since GC 2000
consented to the election of NH (C045).  That would suggest that we gained more conservative
bishops than we lost in liberal bishops, but there are too many problems with that
interpretation.  Blessings and consents are dramatically different issues; all bishops could
vote on D039 in 2000, but only ordinaries could vote on C045 in 2003.

I think it safest to stick just with the obvious: that in the House of Bishops the pro-gay
initiatives were narrowly defeated in 2000 and solidly supported in 2003.  You can check out
any bishop's vote on bellwether lbgt issues since 1979 by clicking on the bishop's name at

         http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/bishops

L.




Please sign my guestbook and view it.


My site has been accessed times since February 14, 1996.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.