I applaud my old friend and seminary classmate for the tone of this statement and for the pastoral sensitivity he is attempting to show even while remaining true to his theological convictions. I grieve with those for whom this will cause pain in his diocese and beyond...but counsel compassion and understanding for all.

Thank you, Ed, for finding a way yet once again to be true to yourself even as you are open and compassionate towards those of us who find ourselves in a different place. One of the things which I remember from Chris' time, your time and my time in seminary is that while we all might have disagreed, I never once felt marginalized by you. Graciousness and compassion are the order of the day and it must extend equally from both sides to the other. May God's peace be with us all.

Jim Hammond
retired
Warrenton, VA

Can someone definitively answer this question: Does the action of GC allow clergy to officiate at blessings of gay couples [or 'straight'] who have not undergone any civil marriage or union?
Ruth Meyers is quoted as saying that the new provisional rite legislation does allow this. At least two bishops insist that the legislation did not permit this and therefore, the provision only applies to couples in their dioceses who have entered into marriage or civil union in a state where the civil action is legal.
Help, please.
Bob McCloskey

"We can rely on him [Jesus]as well to enable us to “maintain the unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3).

Invoking the Holy Spirit covers a multitude of sins, as the old proverb goes.

Actually, I don't think Jesus has a lot to do with maintaining unity on this one. Rather, its seems like the burden of unity is to be carried by the GLBT community, and its supporters and advocates, who have to leave town to get a fair deal.

So Bishop Little would have split Solomon's baby. How very.....pastoral.....of him.

I'm sure those same-sex couples who have to leave their home parishes in search of a blessing will be grateful for his "sensitivity." Not-in my-backyard is *such* a Gospel value.

I'm sorry, but I'm tired of being thrown under the bus. This message is that we, me and my LGBT brothers and sisters, are not affirmed as created in the image of God, same as straight people. And the suffering of many LGBT persons, the depression, the teen suicide rates, etc., is real suffering and there's nothing comparable that straight homophobes suffer when LGBT persons are treated with dignity, justice, and love.

Though I'm not 100 percent thrilled about the approach in Colorado, and the lateness of it, Bishop O'Neil allows parishes to discern whether or not to do the blessings. At least there's a real dialogue, and fewer have to separate themselves from their faith community, friends, and family and leave the friggin' state for these joyous occasions.

Look at the teen suicide rates among LGBT kids before celebrating how "balanced" this all is.

After the story of the couple in Mississippi last week who had to get married in the church down the road because they were not white, this story doesn't really resonate particularly well.

I would probably respect the Bishop's position more if he had simply stated it was not for use in his diocese. I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but it wouldn't be quite the needless slap in the face that this seems to be--"It's ok to do that over there, but not in MY backyard..."

It sounds like a lot of couples will have the chance to feel just like that couple in Mississippi.

Michael Morris

I am really tired and angered by this letter - it is worse than the outright - NO. It is not balanced or pastoral. It just encourages bigotry and oppression in the name of religion. If people don't want to do blessings or gather the community in support and ritual for couples whose love and commitment is clear to all around -- they can opt out -- but for a bishop to make this kind of edict. I think clergy should just go ahead and do blessings or weddings without fear -- there is no canon against doing it. People have tried to pass that sort of rule through GenCon and it has always failed.

1. Bishop Little continues to create a painful lose/lose niche for himself. If you read the comments on Titus 1:9? his natural allies are not very happy with him, and never have been. And judging by the comments on this site, neither are the rest of us.
2. He is however, in my mind, a shining example of what it could mean to be a bishop in the Episcopal Church as a bishop in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and not as the regional overseer of a Protestant denomination.. Unlike many of his allies, he hasn't left, and doesn't plan to. He has kept talking, and kept on loving. Bishop Gene Robinson once said that he would trust Bishop Little with his life.

PS
My parish in Western Michigan (St. Augustine of Canterbury Benton Harbor) would consider ourselves wonderfully blessed if any of the priests of Northern Indiana were to avail themselves of our hospitality in order to preside at a blessing.

(ED--Thanks for the comment, but please sign your name in the future)

I’m scratching my head here, puzzled by the decision…

Does anyone know what the diocese did regarding the ordination of women? Were women told they were loved and honored, but if they wanted to get ordained, they’d have to go to Chicago to do it because there was no consensus about it and it wasn’t biblical?

Or divorced people? Were they told they were all loved and honored, but if they wanted to remarry, they had to go to Chicago to do it becasue there was no consensus about it and it wasn’t biblical?

I dunno….sounds like an odd kind of love and honor…and isn’t a vote in GC “consensus”?…is this confusing, or is it just me?

Kevin McGrane

I agree with so many above. When I read the letter, my reaction was "yes, you can do it but not in my backyard". I too am angry at this. To me it says, "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You, but not here". So, so wrong.

" I think clergy should just go ahead and do blessings or weddings without fear -- there is no canon against doing it."

No, no canon. There is that pesky vow y'all made at ordination to "respect and be guided by the pastoral direction and leadership of your bishop," though.

Like it or not, the resolution that authorizes SSBs only does so "under the direction and subject to the permission of the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority." Ignoring the bishop's directions and, it would seem, the resolution itself, is a terrible idea.

If the Episcopal Church really is hierarchical, then GC would seem to be at the top of the pyramid, and end-runs around its resolutions should be avoided. On the other hand, if everyone is free to take whatever action they want to regardless of what GC authorizes, then it's not hierarchical at all, or even congregational.

In response to Bob McCloskey's question: I served on Committee 13 at GC with Ruth Meyers and I’m sure she is right in her reading of resolution A049. A049 authorizes the rite for provisional use throughout TEC and that includes many civil jurisdictions where same-sex marriage and/or civil unions are non-existent.

However, A049 also states that the rite is to be used “under the direction and subject to the permission of the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority.” It is possible, therefore, that the two bishops to whom you refer have made civil marriage or civil union a prerequisite for the use of the rite within their dioceses. If so, however, that is the result of those bishops’ action, not the language of the General Convention Resolution.

I have to give Bishop Little high marks for theological creativity. I have one question though. What liturgical disinfectant will the clergy who cross diocesan boundaries to bless same sex couples use once they return to Northern Indiana?
Apparently Bishop Little doesn't want anyone to contaminate "his" sacramental authority.

Jack, your post makes sense. The resolution mentions jurisdictions where same-sex marriage and/or civil unions are legal, but makes it clear that it isn't directed solely at them.

If/when the Church stops doing SSBs and authorizes the use of the Marriage Service for all couples, wouldn't the situation change? Currently, straight couples being married by clergy have to present a valid marriage license, after all.

Essentially, Bishop Little makes NO provision for compromise in his diocese. There is no "space" as the only "space" is to go "elsewhere." Anyone could have done that whether Bishop Little would or would not approve. This is a "face-saving" attempt on his part with no substance, as he has no control over what happens in other dioceses anyways. Sorry Bishop Little, but this is a "fail." Nice attempt at spin, though and some pretty words about Christ and mercy.
As an aside, on his "theology," I would have to say that while SSBs are important, they are not THE most important thing in the church. How this issue is about "the deepest convictions of heart and mind" makes me wonder what is of higher importance to him than denying blessings in his diocese? Is this his "deepest conviction of heart and mind?" Perhaps we need a new creed. How about "I believe in God, but more importantly, I believe in marriage and heterosexual relationships as the sole appropriate activity of the clearly-divinely-ordained physical complementarity of female and male individuals and furthermore afirm that the denial of blessings for same-sex relationships is the most important and deepest conviction my heart and mind?" Sarcasm here from me? You bet. No apologies.

Jack, Thanks for the clarification. Since you were on the committee, is it also true that an original part of the proposal included the blessing of 'straight' couples who for a myriad of reasons do not feel that they can enter into marriage.
As a retired cleric in Miami, I am aware of elderly couples who would suffer economic penalties as widowed, if they got married. I detect that that must have been removed by the amended resolution? It has taken me a week to actually discover the amended resolution so I appreciate your help. [I'm doing a presentation Sunday on this.]
Pax, Bob

I may be in some disagreement with some friends and allies here, but I am taken with how hard Bishop Little has worked to figure out what kind of alternatives he can offer to the clergy and people of his diocese without violating his conscience. I think he deserves some credit for that. Obviously he didn't do all that people who believe what I believe might have hoped he would do. But I think he's done all he could, and I respect him for that.

Jim, I think I would have agreed with you last week. The story from Mississippi--and the discussion afterwards on a bulletin board where I spend too many hours (the Ship of Fools) means that this letter hit me a bit differently today.

I appreciate that it is difficult for people on the other side of the divide, too--but has he really provided for anything he could have prevented? Would couples not have been able to do precisely what is suggested to them before the letter was issued?

I have no reason to believe that Bishop Little was trying to be other than pastoral on this, but only the people of his diocese can really judge whether he will succeed in the long term. If they feel they are otherwise cared for, those who disagree with this letter will no doubt grit their teeth and make the best of it, putting it in the overall context of his ministry.

Michael Morris

"I have to give Bishop Little high marks for theological creativity."

Terry, exactly how do you think the bishop is being particularly creative? I get the impression from your post that it's in his saying that priests' sacramental ministries are extensions of their bishop's, which seems pretty well established as the Catholic view of Orders.

Michael, I see your point, but I think what Bishop Little has done is make it easy for the bishops in surrounding jurisdictions to say yes to couples and clergy who come to them seeking to bless or be blessed. That counts for a little something, I think, as they may have been reticent about proceeding otherwise.

Regarding Bill Dilworth's comment regarding theological creativity, I am not questioning the long held precedent where priests function sacramentally on behalf of the diocesan bishop. As a priest that is my view as well. My comments are directed at the notion that Bishop Little believes has found a way to absolve himself of any complicity in something he obviously feels is theology wrong.

Kevin - If I take your questions seriously and not as rhetorical devices to make a point, of course a "provisional rite" of liturgical blessing does not equal a "sacramental rite" like ordination. The ordination of women required a canonical change; liturgical rites do not. Bishops are required to abide by the canons but, as chief liturgical officers of the diocese, they can - and some, like Bishop Little, obviously don't/won't - allow provisionally authorized liturgical rites.

All that being said, while some may defend Bishop Little's attempt to have theological integrity about the resolution, I do not find his decision to be pastoral in the least. It's a liturgical NIMBY (Not in my back yard), which is underscored and highlighted by the events in Mississippi regarding a Black couple who were to be married in a church - A church!- but members expressed dismay over the event and so it was cancelled.

Bishop Little said, "My conscience will not allow me to allow this provisional rite", that, to me, has integrity. To say, "But, to be pastoral, clergy in my diocese can go elsewhere to preside at these blessings," is, absolutely NOT pastoral. It is, in a word, cruel. It establishes a liturgical segregationist theology that, I think, makes Jesus weep.

Michael Morris questions whether Bp. Little has done anything that otherwise could not have been done, and Elizabeth Kaeton sees no grace in permitting clergy to officiate at services for their parishioners outside of the Diocese of NI.

I appreciate both positions but I quite simply disagree. From the point of view of the priest (not so much perhaps of a couple in question), Bp. Little's position conveys grace upon grace. Under the current Title IV (which is proving quickly to be unworkable), a bishop who forbids clergy under his license to perform such a ceremony could inhibit and ultimately defrock any priest who disobeyed the direction. What Bp. Ed Little has done is to empower those clergy in his charge who see a different path to use the liturgy with their parishioners without threat of ecclesiastical discipline. That is a gift to all of his clergy, if not also to the couples whom his clergy may choose to work. Yes, the ceremony cannot be within Northern Indiana, but couples can approach their priest and that priest can choose to say, "yes".

Jim Hammond
retired
Warrenton, VA

Combining Elizabeth and Jim H. points, what I hear Bishop Little saying to his clergy is:

"As your authority, I am saying 'Not in our Diocese.' However, you can go next door and do it, and I promise not to hold it against you when you return, even though I would technically have grounds to discipline you."

That is more than a "no", so it's fair to call this a "pastoral response" to the clergyperson who would preside at a blessing.

It is, in no way, pastoral to those SEEKING a blessing. And that is why it is still a fail, because it is as Elizabeth says: "cruel" to the people of the Diocese as a whole.

Is anyone else as mystified by the apparent discrepancy between the preamble (even-handed) and the POLICY ("my way is the highway...to another diocese!")?

Just in the past few days, we've heard the tale of an African-American (heterosexual) couple in Mississippi who were told by the pastor of a predominantly-white Baptist church they'd been attending, "You can get married---just not here": how is this any different?

Again, re even-handedness: where is the role of parish discernment here? If the bishop is going to be even-handed, shouldn't parishes that wish to bless same-sex couples have a say?

Put it all together, and this policy adds up to FAIL: no warm&fuzzy preamble can cover it up.

JC Fisher

I, too, am a little puzzled (and more than a little irritated) at those who say that they would rather have had Bishop Little say a flat "no" then have come up with this compromise. REALLY? If so, that would seem to be because of one of three reasons:

1) You wish to lump him in with the "conservatives" so that you can brand him as the "enemy" (so much less complicated that way).
2) You think that the people of the Diocese of Northern Indiana shouldn't have access to the provisional rites unless they can be done in their own geographic area. (The "my rite, my way!" position.)
3) You have zero tolerance for any position that doesn't wholeheartedly embrace full marriage rites for GLBT persons and seek to expel anyone from TEC that doesn't agree with that position. (The Bishop Barbara Harris' message to conservatives: "God go with you. Goodbye!")

Being an inclusive church means including those who disagree with you. I think forcing Bishop Little to either violate his conscious or simply ban his clergy from doing blessings entirely makes little sense.

I was in a diocese that didn't ordain women up until 1998, and I would have preferred the kind of arrangement Bp. Little outlines than none at all. In fact, as it turns out, when my own bishop wouldn't ordain me, Bishop Little did - I was his first ordinand.

I am in favor of same-gender blessings, and I can see how some find this kind of response discouraging. And I know it's disappointing sometimes to discover that TEC is not monolith, that there is a diversity of theological perspective out there. But isn't that what being the Via Media is about?

I know Bishop Little, and I know his diocese, and I know that he is a kind, prayerful and godly bishop. He is a conservative, but he is one who has chosen to remain steadfast in the church - not to make trouble or be divisive but because this is his church too and he loves it. He has not tried to take his diocese out of TEC. In all of the rancor and ugliness that has gone on in the last ten years, Bp. Little has continued to be faithful to this church.

We all say that we love diversity. We like to talk about the "big tent" that is our church, but do we really believe in that? I wonder if in reality we will not be happy until all the conservatives are gone, even the ones who play fair, who love the church, and do their best to have integrity and respond pastorally to their people? If we get to that point, will we be wise enough to realize what we have lost?

How sad that this is being compared to the situation in Mississippi. This is exactly why people have a harsh view of the LGBT community as it is.

"This is exactly why people have a harsh view of the LGBT community..."

Really, Nicole? I thought it was because of all that #$%% ^$#*@&@, and then some of that #$%^&!**&%, followed by some #@*&^%& that they think is going on all night long behind my apartment door, when they find out I have a boyfriend. All that sinny sin sinning, etc. Thanks for clearing that up. *eye roll*

At least the bishop is sincere and isn't out to defrock those who disagree with him. Come on, I'm trying to see the best in people here.

Well Clint, comparing things that can't be compared will do the trick too. Homosexuality isn't and will never be a race.

Compromise means both sides give up something in order to gain something. Pastoral means caring for and sustaining the needs of those all under your care, not just the majority.

What, exactly, has Bishop Little given up? What has his diocese given up? They have gained a furtherance of their No Blessings for Those People policy, a little more time to ignore those people, a little feather in the cap of those opposed to marriage equality, a little political fodder to boost their position, yes?

What have LGBTQ people given up? The ability to have their committed relationships being recognized and supported by being blessed in their home church. A truthful acting out of the lie that TEC Welcomes You! Hope that young people coming up and confused about their identity might have been given a small dose of encouragement and faith so as not to do harm to themselves. True membership in the congregations they worship and serve in every Sunday. Alienation from family and friends who may not be able to travel out of state to witness the blessing of their relationship. Legitimacy of their own families and children in the eyes of their congregations. What have they gained? Nothing that they didn't already have -- the right to remain closeted, absent, invisible, and away from those who despise them and wish they would, indeed, go away for good. Pastoral indeed.

And here we have the legion of Bishop Little's friends instructing us in how we should feel and react and implying that he is becoming a victim here! An actual priest of God claiming that because some have dared air their hurt and frustration with this crumb of stale, moldy bread that the conservatives are being harmed and pushed out of the church. Lord have mercy!

I have no doubt that Bishop Little is a godly, loving Christian man who is admired and loved by many.

I will quote Judge Judy here though and ask that you don't p*** on my leg and tell me it's raining. There is nothing pastoral, noble, loving, or celebratory in this spoiled Anglican fudge.

Those who aren't ever, ever in their lives going to experience this kind of hateful discrimination and second class citizenship have a lot of chutzpah proclaiming from their place of high privilege and telling those of us who are suffering mightily and always have how to react and how to feel, let alone daring to chastise, correct, and shame us.

Embarrassing and very, very sad and indicative of how limited acceptance and equality for LGBTQ persons really is, even among many who call themselves our allies!

May God have mercy on God's people, sinners all, myself among them!

Thanks Priscilla -- exactly. LIttle is just covering his bigotry with "nice" --

As inadequate and unacceptable as Bishop Little's response is, he is NOT a bigot. He is a deeply conflicted human being, who has chosen a lose/lose position. His conscience and his heart are in contradiction to each other, and he bears the price. The Titus 1:9 sorts abhor him as a compromising traitor, and the Integrity sorts abhor him as well, whatever we abhor him as. He is truly alone. For Christ's sake, he is a good man with a big heart!!! He's completely wrong on one level, but at least he didn't leave like all the other sniveling coward miserable excuses for a bishop in the one holy catholic apostolic church that are now regional schismatic overseers in CANA or the Southern Cone or Nigeria or wherever the f+++ they claim to be.
I used to be in his diocese. I was dismayed and destroyed when he was elected bishop. You know what, though? The first time he presided at my parish, the cathedral, I recognized such love for Jesus in his eyes that I knew that our shared love for Jesus was greater than any issue that divided us.
Come on guys, we are on the winning side of history. At least let us be gracious to the losers!

Pricilla, I am sorry that my words hurt you so much. I doubt that you would ever believe me, but I have indeed been the victim of "hateful discrimination and second class citizenship" in this church - so much so in fact that people who know the full story are amazed I would still want to be a Christian after the way I was treated. One thing I learned in that process is not to paint everyone who disagrees with me with the same brush. I don't think +Ed Little deserves to be demonized. But again, I apologize for upsetting you.

Mary Ann, I thank you for your apology. I do believe you. I don't believe that many of the commenters on this thread, however, have any inkling of what it feels like to forever be "other" and second class.

Coming on the heels of "Chik-fil-A Appreciation Day" where the media went crazy and documenting the thousands and thousands of people celebrating their hate it was a hard day indeed.

There is a difference between painting everyone who disagrees with you with a broad brush and I do not condemn you nor Bishop Little for what you think. I also do not think he deserves praise and celebration for this decision.

May God bring us into a place of peaceful coexistence!

Priscilla wrote:

"Compromise means both sides give up something in order to gain something. Pastoral means caring for and sustaining the needs of those all under your care, not just the majority."

She is right. Bishop Little did give something to clergy seeking to bless in the name of the church: a way to do so without fear of discipline by their Bishop. But he failed to give anything to those seeking blessings for their committed relationships.

JC Fisher wrote:

"re even-handedness: where is the role of parish discernment here? If the bishop is going to be even-handed, shouldn't parishes that wish to bless same-sex couples have a say?"

This is where Bishop Little could have been "pastoral" towards those seeking a blessing. He could have given some process (vestry discernment and approval, congregation vote at Annual Meeting) where individual parishes could decide for themselves whether to use the liturgy or not.

This would have been the "give" that was needed to demonstrate care for the LGBT community that has been marginalized by the church. Despite what I believe is his sincere intentions, Bishop Little has failed to care for many of those he has been called to serve.

"I don't believe that many of the commenters on this thread, however, have any inkling of what it feels like to forever be "other" and second class."

I think that's a huge assumption on your part.

"So Bishop Little would have split Solomon's baby. How very.....pastoral.....of him.

I'm sure those same-sex couples who have to leave their home parishes in search of a blessing will be grateful for his "sensitivity." Not-in my-backyard is *such* a Gospel value."

Would you rather have the policy of the Diocese of Albany? There, clergy can be subject to discipline for ATTENDING a same-sex marriage in civilian clothes. Let me say that again so that it sinks in- a priest in Albany can lose his or her license simply for attending the wedding or holy union of a family member in another state! Bishop Love will sometimes allow his clergy to attend same sex marriages and blessings in lay attire, but the burden of proof is on them to show that their presence is a "pastoral necessity" and they have to give assurances that they will not endorse or bless the relationship, even privately.

I get that this policy is not pastoral to LGBT people who want church weddings- "go to Grenta Green" is what they'd have to do anyway, and it's what they have to do in conservative dioceses that don't try to give liberal parishes space. The only thing this does is allow them to have their own clergy as officiants, which isn't much in the grand scheme of things. But it is pastoral to the clergy, who are not being asked to violate their concienses.

In terms of my own opression credentials, I am bi man who hads been in more same sex relationships then opposite sex ones. Please don't tell me I have no idea what homophobia feels like.

As a former pro-gay United Methodist, I also know what being a theological minority feels like. That is why I am very sympathetic to conservatives in The Episcopal Church.

Whit Johnstone

I do think this is an important topic, and I believe that one should try to be as consistant in his/her beliefs as one can be, which is the jist of my comment above.

That said, I find it distrubing that this issue gets 38+ comments, and the preceeding essay "The little church that could" is ignored.

Why does theology seem to reign and service goes begging?

Kevin McGrane

If, back when I was a graduate student at Notre Dame, someone had told me that within twenty years a Bishop of Northern Indiana would be making arrangements to allow his clergy to bless same-sex unions, I couldn't have believed it. My experience as a gay Episcopalian in that diocese was very different indeed. I would hate for Bishop Little's graciousness in making this pastoral provision to be depreciated just because the astonishing change in Northern Indiana hasn't been quite astonishing enough to please everyone.

Kevin, you seem to be judging the importance of a given post to the readership by the number of comments that people post, and I think that's problematic. People might not comment on a post for any number of reasons, including not thinking they had anything to add. I don't think that anyone except the website owners, who can see statistics about what articles get read, can say that one post "reigns" while another "goes begging." The number of comments often seems to be an indication of how much heat a post generates, rather than how much light it sheds.

Then again, maybe some people are interested in certain topics and not others. I don't think that would necessarily be the problem that you seem to think it would be.

Bill: thanks for your comments. Allow me to respond a bit, as I may be confusing some readers…

I AM judging the importance we give a post (topic) by the number of comments it generates. I think it is very telling. It tells me where our heads and hearts are.

And I DO think that it is the problem I observe: we engage in Rhetoric and neglect Daikonia.
If we are going to be a church of the 5 Marks of Mission, we have to be as much a church of Mark 3 as Mark 4.

When it comes to issues of theology, this place lights up like a Christmas tree. When it comes to issues of service, it goes as quiet as a graveyard.
Kevin McGrane

"Homosexuality isn't and will never be a race"? Actually, race is a social construct based on perceived differences. These differences are superficial; the only "race" is the human race. The perceived races are cultural groups.

But homosexuals are distinguished by perceived differences. Forced together by social pressure, they develop a distinctive culture. Homosexuality may have as good a claim to being a race as any other cultural group. And as its perceived differences fade in significance to the majority culture, same-sex attraction may become of as little social import as skin color.

Yes, African-Americans bear a heavy burden of discrimination and bias that LGBT people can largely avoid by keeping their mouths shut. We're present in all cultural groups, which mostly have affected not to notice. Once identified, "the other" faces majority disapprobation. Blacks have suffered as a people; LBGTs faced prejudice as individuals. Blacks as a people have had it worse since the development of slavery in the New World; an unknown gay kid in an unaccepting family and bigoted community probably suffers as much as anyone can.

Once again, I've taken Ms Porter's bait and diverted the discussion. Back to the Bishop of Northern Indiana, please. Kevin McGrane makes an interesting point about where our passions lie.

The General Convention is responsible for this mess because it gave diocesan bishops the right to opt out. The separate-and-unequal blessings would probably still have passed without a conscience clause. Why give people a right if one does not expect them to use it?

The real issue is marriage equality, both civil and religious. Anything less will not do.

Singling out a group for different treatment communicates disapproval. One need not enter into the debate about whose oppression is worse. Suffice it to say, along with Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, that the same arguments which are used against same-sex couples marrying were used against mixed-race couples.

The issue is equal protection before the laws of the land.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Several people here have posted comments refering to people who support Chick-fil-A as "haters". Would one of you please explain to me how my belief, along with Bishop Little's, that the Bible defines marriage as being between a "man and a woman" makes me a "hater". Are you saying that I am a "hater" just because I don't interpret the Bible exactly like you? Surely not? But that is what I am lead to believe you are saying. Just because I think you are wrong does not mean I "hate" you or anyone else. As a Christian I also think that Jews and Muslims are "wrong", but I respect them and I certainly don't "hate" them. I'm just so tired of being called an "hater" or a "bigot" just because I read the Bible differently than someone else. I would sincerely like to hear the rational for someone describing me as a "hater" just because I have deeply held convictions that are based on over 2,000 years of Christian teachings.

My, my, my! Where to start?

Let's start with "the Integrity sorts who abhor him" comment by Freeman Gilbert: I believe it is fair for me to claim to be an "Integrity sort" -- as a past-president and current member of the statekholder's council of advice -- and I for one take my baptismal promise to respect the dignity of every human being to seriously to "abhor" anyone -- and certainly not +Ed Little ... who I've known since he was a priest here in the Diocese of Los Angeles and who I've gone "up against" on several occasions in pro-and-con media opportunities. I think he's wrong on this one. I think the rock-and-a-hard-place he finds himself in is of his own making. And I think he's genuinely trying to twist out some kind of compromise he can both live with theologically and sleep at night with pastorally.

For Ms. Porter -- no, homosexuality isn't race but heterosexism is yet-another-sin against the "second is like unto it Greatest Commandment" -- love your neighbor as yourself. You don't love your neighbor reducing them to "other" status in order to make them strangers at the gate.

Finally, for Gary ... diocesan bishops always have the option to "opt out" -- General Convention didn't give that to them. It's how we're wired as a church ... like it or lump it. Want to change it? Eat your Wheaties and stay healthy enough to live long enough to organize and elect somebody different next time.

That's enough from me.

The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena

I am baffled by the comments attacking Bishop Little. From what I know he is a great person, pastoral, friendly, and faithful. The attempts to demonize him I believe violate our baptismal calling, as Susan points out.

I think we need to decide what we mean by The Episcopal Church welcomes you. If we mean we welcome you as long as you agree with my position that is one model of church. If we mean that life is messy and church is the Body of Christ where we can't just remove the parts we don't like...that is another model of welcome. Personally I hope for the later.

If we are going to start requiring people to hold certain beliefs on certain issues we are dramatically changing the nature of The Episcopal Church. And that is ok, but let those of us know before you kick us out.

There is a safe place for those who can't abide same-sex marriages, several, in fact: the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Baptists, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, most of the evangelical and pentecostal churches. TEC is, on the other hand, one of the very, very few mainline denominations glbt's and glbt-supporters have - the only, in most places.

Little is simply protecting his market share, though he may have convinced himself he is doing it for the right reasons.

Sorry, that should've been signed:

Mark Brunson

Susan, Yes, alas, episcopal polity allows diocesan bishops to do as they please. It took decades, for example, before all dioceses opened ordination to women.

But at the same time things are not that clear because otherwise there would have been no need for a conscience clause in A049, which says that no bishop, priest, deacon, or layperson is to be penalized for a deeply held conviction on the resolution on blessings.

Gary Paul Gilbert

"Resolved, That this convention honor the theological diversity of this church in
regard to matters of human sexuality, and that no bishop, priest, deacon or lay
person should be coerced or penalized in any manner, nor suffer any canonical
disabilities, as a result of his or her conscientious objection to or support for the
77th General Convention’s action with regard to the Blessing of Same-Sex
Relationships;"

As I read these threads and try to douse any personal emotions I have about them, I notice a few things.

First, many of those speaking sympathetically of Bishop Little make the point that it "could have been so much worse." Of course it could have been worse. It can always be worse. As a physician, when giving people difficult news such as, "You have probable Alzheimer's disease" one often hears replies such as "At least I don't have cancer." Yes, true, but that does not make having AD a good thing. It is no more than a human coping mechanism. I do not think that Bishop Little should get tremendous amounts of credit for not being "worse" about the issue. He might get a little credit for opening the door a tiny crack. If that's the most that his spirit allows, then that's the most it allows, but don't expect me to stand up and applaud him because he "could have been worse."

I also am puzzled by all the people who imply that Bishop Little must be doing a good and generous thing because he is so "nice" or "warm" or "generous" or "kind." I am pleased that Bishop Little possesses those qualities. On this issue, however, his niceness is a bit thinner on the ground. It doesn't make him either an angel or a demon. It makes him a fallible human. Kyrie eleison! "Lord I believe, help my unbelief."

Finally, for those who want to keep from making the persons against SSBs from feeling "bad" and "uncomfortable," again, no apologies. Spiritual growth is difficult not easy. Sometimes we must struggle with our own beliefs and prejudices. Any out LGBT person who has remained in the church has surely "struggled." The struggle is one of the ways in which we grow morally and spiritually. I WANT them to be uncomfortable with weak compromises. I want them to squirm when they realize that "compromising" on the dignity of real human beings for the sake of their moral principles hurts real people in real ways. I want them to see that, although we might applaud a little incremental progress, LGBT persons are not going to say "thanks so much for allowing us to gather up the crumbs under your table" and I'll "depart in peace." We all struggle and should struggle. Everytime I get angry on the freeway when an aged truck filled with migrant workers slows me down, I have to give myself a moral slap and remind myself that these individuals living in poverty are trying to struggle through an existence that I, in my wealth, can barely imagine. How dare I as a privileged and wealthy white-faced person be irritated with these often "brown-faced" individuals, just because they possess out-dated technology and slow down my commute? Prejudice is hard wired into us just as is compassion/empathy but it is a constant struggle to give compassion the upper hand. If this debate makes some of us on both "sides" uncomfortable, then good, it shows us where we need to work, and I hope that no one here feels that they have reached the peak of moral perfection? To turn the rationalization on it's head, "we can always be BETTER."

Rev.Russell, you have the right to your opinion, I happen to disagree with what you believe sin to be. I still stand by what I said. There isn't a case for any of this nonsense but one built on emotion. There is nothing traditional,scriptural,or logical about taking actions that will kill the church. Better get your last draws from the well before it's all gone.

Ms. Porter ... You, too, have a right to your opinion. What you don't have a right to is confuse your opinion with facts.

The facts are cases for the full inclusion of the gay and lesbian baptized in the work and witness of the church abound. You may not agree with their conclusions but you cannot deny their existence and retain any shred of credibility as a commentor on the 21st century church. If you'd like a reading list I'd be happy to recommend one. I am, however, not holding my breath. In my experience, those who believe they have Sole Possession of the Capital T Truth don't need to both with pesky little things like Capital F Facts.

Cheers!

The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena

@Gary ... re: "the conscience clause" in A049 does nothing more than make explicit in the resolution that which is already implicit in our polity. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to restate the obvious in order to move legislation for adoption in the church any more that we would need to restate in our civil marriage legislation that the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion -- including any clergy person deciding to marry or not to marry any couple for any reason whatsoever.

The last time I checked, however, the world was not perfect. We lost nothing by making explicit in the resolution what is implicit in our polity. What we gained were votes in the House of Bishops -- which is why I argued FOR its inclusion as a member of the legislative sub-committee crafting the resolution's language for adoption.

Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena

Susan, I agree a conscience clause, both in secular and church politics, may be necessary to get something passed. But there is always a negative side of providing a precedent for saying that even though legislators have recommended something as good by passing a particular bill, they at the same time suspend their recommendation.

So it still is not clear what the status of same-sex couples is in the Episcopal Church. I don't see calling for equal protection as perfectionist in any way.

It all seems very Dickensian as in "IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief..."

Gary Paul Gilbert

In such cases, I think it's useful to ask the question, "What conclusion would I reach if the group affected by the decision were a different group?" Thus, I believe the discussion about Mississippi is onto something. If, for example, Bishop Little had decreed that clergy could marry mixed-race couples, but only in other dioceses, what would we conclude? Or that clergy might minister to Hispanics, but only outside his diocese? If we tweak the underlying question, we start to get a handle on the underlying problem here, which is that Bishop Little's attitude on this issue stinks.

The other matter that is troubling is that he does not respect the consciences of clergy who wish to promote equality. Yes, things could get worse, and indeed they are worse in other dioceses. But that doesn't reach the underlying moral question--it just states the obvious. Nor is Bishop Little's solution the "safe space" that he purports it to be. Saying that inclusion stops at the borders of the diocese is not a safe space--it's the theological equivalent of don't ask, don't tell. Goodbye moral conviction, hello political expediency.

Shame on you, Bishop Little.

Eric Bonetti