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

Re: On the notion to delay voting on sexual issues at GC in 2000



"William H. Bartosh" <wbartosh@slonet.org> wrote:
> PS - I'd like to note that so many of my gay friends have now come to
> expect the Episcopal Church to be friendly that I get emailed mostly when
> it does NOT seem to be, which surprises them.  EG, I have a politically
> active gay friend down here, who sent me the item about Bp. Iker and St.
> Stephen's in Witchita Falls - he was surprised, not being in the church
> nor knowing the uneven quality of inclusion just now.  Still it speaks
> well for us.  If our secular friends were instead being surprised, however
> pleasantly, by inclusive stories, it would put the lie to our overall
> welcome, and readiness to vote.

Good point.

It is also important to remember that GC is not a liberal vanguard in the
church, but a body of folks who work hard in the dioceses and have the
respect of the majority who elect them.  You don't get or keep this
respect if you have the reputation of going off to do some half-cocked
idea, and while as a deputy you are supposed to vote your private
conscience, every deputy feels a need to be able to account for that vote
back home.   

Add to that the fact that at GC 1997 we came within one vote in each order
of passing a resolution that would have put a service blessing same-sex
unions into the Book of Occasional Services. (See
http://www.dfms.org/governance/general-convention/97GenConv/c002.html)
Note that the  vote-by-orders with which this count was taken is 
is tantamount to a two-third majority......  Note also that four dioceses 
who voted uniformly against C002 in 1997 are no longer a part
of ECUSA but of the Province of the Caribbean.

Yes, your friends are right to be surprised when they find hostility in
the Episcopal Church.

L.





Please sign my guestbook and view it.


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

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.