Pleased with my Diocese of Virginia bishops:
‏@CenterAisle
+Peter Lee "Yes"; +Johnston "Yes"; +Gulick "Yes", +Jones "Yes" ‪#A049‬ ‪#GC77‬

Hallelujah! Come on HoD!

Is there any place online where we could see the discussion that went on before the vote, and also see how each of the bishops voted?

Bp. Dena Harrison: Against. Will affect relationships across the world. We can bear better than those whose mission it will affect

Who's "we", Kemo Sabe? O_o

I'm still concerned that this is "Marriage Lite", as opposed to Full Marriage Equality...but it's definitely a step in the right(eous) direction! God bless.

JC Fisher

JC Fisher: the "they" are Anglicans who are struggling to be Christians in countries that are intolerant of Christans and even more intolerant of LGBT people. Our actions, even if they are right for us, can create danger for them by association.

Beyond that, the bishops were VERY clear that they hope that we will be charitable towards those who disagree with us. At the very least we should be civil and respectful. While I am pleased with this outcome, I recognize that this will be painful for many faithful Episcopalians. If *all* really does mean ALL, then that means then that must include our conservative brothers and sisters too. Ridiculing them, marginalizing them, and pushing them out will only make hypocrites of those who say they value inclusivity.

JC Fisher, The blessings would be a parallel institution to offer some recognition to same-sex couples which further segregates and stigmatizes them.

Separate and unequal! The blessings would be progress only to the extent that they could be read as an admission of guilt over not offering any recognition at all.

The blessings would not be allowed in every diocese because conservative diocesan bishops could prohibit them.

This denomination is behind the times on both civil and religious marriage for same-sex couples.

Only equality will do.

The United Church of Christ and the Unitarians have understood this for a while now.

Gary Paul Gilbert

And how are the UCC and the Unitarians doing right now? They're just flourishing right?

Agree with both Mary Ann and Gary.

If we compare this issue with Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court reopened Brown II's infamous "with all deliberate speed" implementation mandate 24 years later, believing rightly that the ruling had fallen victim to foot-dragging.

In the matter of equality for sexual minorities, the original “full and equal claim” legislation passed 35 years ago. Folks have lived and died waiting for TEC to make good on its promise, and we can only hope that it doesn't take us another 35 years of dithering to formally support marriage equality. The vote towards blessing SGRs is a positive thing, but it’s neither “full and equal” nor “separate but equal.” It’s permission to ride the bus, but only in the back. And riding the bus often beats walking, but many will conclude that if they are relegated to the back of the bus, they’d just as soon save the fare and keep right on walking.

Apropos conservatives, I ardently hope for true inclusion in every sense of the term. At the same time, we’ve spent more than enough time worrying about people’s reactions. Indeed, the lack of equality is evinced in the very caution we see on marriage equality. No one would hold up anti-racism training on the grounds that some might be offended, yet by definition a racist likely will have an issue with our position on this matter.

Still not convinced? Take a look at the “ministries” section of theTEC Web site. That section has 25 sub-menus, including eco-justice, children, migration, aging, disabilities, Latino/Hispanic, and even prisoners. But nothing about GLBT. How is that prisoners, for example, make the cut, but GLBT people don’t? Immigration surely is controversial, but no one is worried about how people will react to that ministry.

Here's to courtesy and respect, coupled with the courage to make a difference.

Eric Bonetti

PS I would like to see the church appoint someone to serve as onbudsman or coordinator for GLBT ministries. Perhaps such a position now exists, but if so, it's not getting the visibility it needs. Nor do we need had headcount for such a position--I am confident that plenty of clergy and laity would be willing to take on this role.

EB

This is a step worthy of celebration, even while acknowledging that it is not done, not until there is equal recognition and the same liturgy. Nevertheless it is a forward movement, even if not yet all that we would like.

But reading the news articles and the feed, I am particularly struck by this comment

Bp. Bauerschmidt,...Reasonable to believe that vowed lifelong fidelity predicated on opposite sex. ‪#gc77‬

By "struck" I mean I am profoundly offended that a Bishop, an educated man, brought into debate a canard that lesbians and gays are promiscuous and incapable of fidelity. And calls it "reasonable to believe" despite the witness and example of numerous faithful gay and lesbian couples with partnerships that have endured through many decades.

This comment is deeply insulting to me as a married gay person. It implies that I am not capable of living my vows, that my marriage is somehow "not real".

That single comment shows how far there is yet to go.

Susan Forsburg

Although it is difficult at my office and with my work, I "stuck it out" to be able to watch the streaming feed from HOB as it voted on passage of the heavily amended A049. Although the blessings permission is extended, almost all of the amended language ink was expended to service the minority of bishops who were and presumably will always be opposed to this. It is "broadly pastoral" and essentially allows them to continue in their own dioceses with "business as usual." There is "no penalty" from prohibiting anyone who wishes to act on THEIR conscience and celebrate blessings from their inhibiting them from doing so. As far as I am concerned within TEC, we have expended enough energy making the "excluded" excluders feel "welcome." I have been excluded throughout my entire life in the church on this issue. Next year will be my partner's and my 25th anniversary. The sheer absurdity of having a blessing at our age and stage makes this resolution "useless" in a personal sense to us, but I am happy that it moves towards the light for those younger and older persons among us at the beginnings of their lives together.
I am not trying to "exclude" anyone here, but the "nay" sayers have had their say and for _centuries_ now. I understand that they are upset and I sympathize with my mind (although in honesty not with my heart), but I refuse to put on a sad and gloomy "pastoral" face over this. I am not gloating over their loss. I am CELEBRATING our/my liberation. Allow US our chance to celebrate without laying a pall of more guilt on us.

Thank you, Donald! The denomination continues to exclude a historically disfavored group, same-sex couples, from the institution of religious marriage, without offering any justification other than that is how things have always been done. Blessings continue this exclusion. It is not clear what is being blessed. Must the couples get civil unions or civil weddings in jurisdictions which offer them?

Eric, I would prefer not to get into the metaphor of riding on the bus because that might risk appropriating the experience of racial discrimination in this country. Same-sex couples are excluded from both civil and religious marriage. The denomination has done little to advocate for civil equality and will likely now offer a nationally developed eighties-type commitment liturgy within the church.

This is too little, too late.

Gary Paul Gilbert

@ Mary Ann: I think you miss my point. To the best of my knowledge, Bp Harrison is not gay. Therefore, when he (?) says "We can bear better" NOT having ANY ritual of blessing for same-sex couples, he's speaking of something that does not directly affect him. I strongly RESENT someone else speaking for what *I* can bear, when that person is safe in their own legal&blessed-in-every-state&diocese opposite-sex marriage!

@ Nicole: I'm really getting tired of the simplistic sarcasm of your last several posts here on The Cafe. In terms of ***Biblical righteousness***, I think the UCC and UU are "flourishing" Just Fine, by means of their marriage equality. Does that add up to bums-in-the-pew/$-in-the-collection-plate (perhaps what you meant)? I really don't know. Those are the WORLD's standards, not God's!

JC Fisher

What denomination is flourishing? The Catholics? Nope. Empty churches in much of the world. More and more lapsed Catholics in the U.S. every year. A church that is only growing because of a temporary wave of immigration. Bankruptcies and closing parishes. So what's your point?

Dan Sloan

Hi Gary. Thanks very much for your comments.

My use of the bus analogy was not unintended, and as someone who actually has been on the Freedom Rides (in the 80's -- not the original ones) I did so with some trepidation. But I also wanted to make the point that the passion, the courage, and in some cases, the willingness to risk one's life to acheive equality has not been present on the issue of marriage equality. Instead, we see the standard TEC paradigm--send it to committee, study it, put out a "safe" resolution, bloviate, repeat. And when in doubt, reduce it to pseudo-Elizabethan English, make it really obtuse, and try again.

For heaven's sake--it's a wonder we're not still a friggin' English colony. After all, we certainly would not wish to be unkind towards those who believe we should be subject to taxation without representation.

Again, I applaud the recent votes, but the phrase "moral courage" is not the first to come to mind.

Eric Bonetti

Hi Eric, Passion is not something I associate with the Episcopal Church these days. Barbara Harris on one of the recent Integrity videos says there is too much timidity in the denomination today.

If you knew what you were doing with the bus analogy, great!

If we had done like Canada and remained loyal we would most likely already have full civil marriage equality in this country. And we could have avoided two civil wars. The first one split families in Long Island. Not pretty!

I think the Presbyterians were right to raise the issue of marriage. Though they narrowly rejected opening marriage to same-sex couples at least they raised the right question.

I am too much of a consumer advocate to celebrate this vote. The fine print I read is that this is not religious marriage and does nothing to support civil marriage for same-sex couples.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Dear Jeffrey, I apologize for calling you Donald. For some reason I was confusing you with someone else.

Gary Paul Gilbert

As I understand it, GC has authorized blessing civil unions. But we now have Marriage in the northeast US and many other places. The discussion has moved on. By belatedly recognizing unions, however, GC may provide cover for enterprising church persons to go farther. The cat will not go back in the bag.

Gary's been exchanging comments with Donald Schell. Donald Shell, Jeffrey Shy -- suspect mental cross contamination.