March 23, 2017

July 8, 2012

Out: Gay. In: Trans!

If you’ve been wondering what’s been going at the Episcopal Church’s General Convention in Indianapolis, wonder no more.

Resolutions D002 and D019 were both passed by the House of Bishops (its passage in the House of Deputies is a foregone conclusion, and may have already happened by the time you read this), making it against church laws not to consider someone for any area of ministry due to their “gender identity and expression.” This means that if anyone like the people in the video below want to be priests or deacons, or be on the vestry or even just run the nursery on Sunday mornings, you can’t tell them no because they suffer from a mental disorder that makes them want to surgically mutilate themselves so that their bodies are as much of a mess as their minds.

Does that sound harsh? Just a few years ago I would have agreed, and having worked for years with severely disabled children, part of me still looks at these folks as pitiful, in need of serious help, and deserving of my pity and not my scorn.

But that is not what they’ve announced they want. What they’ve announced they want is for their disorder to be blessed, and celebrated, and hammered into our church lives with the cudgel of the church canons. They’ve announced that they intend to brook no dissent - that if you don’t think transsexuals and cross-dressers should be in your pulpit, that’s tough. You’re a bigot and your opinions mean nothing up against The Canons.

In other words, they’ve announced that they want war. So war they shall have, at least from us. So you’ll understand if things sound harsh from time to time.

You should know that these resolutions were passed in the House of Bishops by voice vote, so there’s no official tally as to which bishop voted how. This is why we encourage you to give your bishop until next week to get back into town, then promptly contact his office and demand to know how he voted.

We will be opening a thread in a couple of days to tally the votes we’re able to obtain through comments or emails.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



I watched the whole video. (As noted in another thread, I’ve also watched The Hangover Part II, including the still photos at the end. So, I have a strong stomach. Poor Stu.)

It’s professionally scripted, edited, etc. Nice soundtrack. Must have cost someone a lot of $$$.


I wonder how they managed to get a pass on the canonical psych evaluations. Maybe they didn’t.

[1] Posted by Ralph on 7-8-2012 at 01:46 PM · [top]

Hey, look at this:

Is this too good to be true, or might it be possible that 13 bishops could block the current wave of pro-gay union craziness?

[2] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 7-8-2012 at 01:55 PM · [top]

It’s sad that these folks don’t see themselves as they could be - a Holy Temple filled with God’s Holy Spirit.  Instead they are angry and confused, to the point of even changing their sexual identity.

On the one hand I pray for them; on the other they have no business being in a leadership position in the church.

[3] Posted by B. Hunter on 7-8-2012 at 01:57 PM · [top]


I’m not an expert on General Convention’s voting, but if the AnglicanInk article is accurate, then yes, it would seem that 13 bishops might be able to block certain legislation.

The questions, of course, are whether there are actually 13 bishops in the Episcopal Church who a) want to stop it, and b) have the cajones to stand up and be counted against it.

The House of Bishops is not exactly full of profiles in courage.

[4] Posted by Greg Griffith on 7-8-2012 at 01:59 PM · [top]

Cynthia, Anglican Curmudgeon has also posted on this. I trust Mr. Haley enough that if he says that is could come about then it is true IF they go by the proper procedure.  Given the HoB’s propensity to ditch the rules, there is no guarantee of any outcome in a vote at the HoB.

[5] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-8-2012 at 02:00 PM · [top]

“The House of Bishops is not exactly full of profiles in courage. “

True, Greg, but wouldn’t it be simply splendid if it DID happen - as I mentioned elsewhere, it wouldn’t be the first time that a mere 13 people stood against the darkness!

[6] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 7-8-2012 at 02:08 PM · [top]

Anglican Curmudgeon? I’ve never heard of that blog, I’ll have to check it out!

[7] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 7-8-2012 at 02:09 PM · [top]

These people in the video are bizarre. Sorry to break this to them, but most of the ones born male still look and sound male, and vice versa. In this sick society it’s fashionalble to be LGBT or Q.

[8] Posted by Nellie on 7-8-2012 at 02:12 PM · [top]

Psalm 139:13-16a (ESV)
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance.

God made us in His image, and it is pure gift. 
Just because we cannot readily discern the causes of gender identity confusion does not mean that the causes do not exist.  A practitioner of healing prayer with experience in depth psychology and trauma prayer would be far more likely to get to the root of the problem than a urologist or gynecologist.  The surgery involved in changing genders is more mutilating than most cancer surgery, and the change must be sustained by lifelong exogenous hormones.

[9] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 7-8-2012 at 02:16 PM · [top]

I know only one person who had a sex change operation - he was abused as a kid and was a psychological basket case before the operation. He says that he’s happier now as a “woman”, because he was never comfortable with being a gay man, but anybody who meets him can easily tell that he wasn’t born female.

[10] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 7-8-2012 at 02:16 PM · [top]

That’s true, Jill -  my friend who had the operation has become borderline diabetic and has high blood pressure on account of all the estrogen, and is at increased risk for cancer and a number of other diseases. Artificial hormones just aren’t healthy, and the risk is even greater if someone takes hormones bodies aren’t genetically designed to handle in the first place.

[11] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 7-8-2012 at 02:19 PM · [top]

RE: “Sorry to break this to them, but most of the ones born male still look and sound male, and vice versa.”

Yup—my radar would go off for each of the people in the video—mostly with loud blaring foghorns and a couple of times with just “uh . . . you’re not who you’re pretending to be.”

Do you think they know that it’s obvious, even after the surgery, after the masses of hormones?

[12] Posted by Sarah on 7-8-2012 at 02:40 PM · [top]

Maybe this is the Machivellian in me, but I’ve been wondering through all of this if this push to normalize transgenderism isn’t a ploy to make the whole SSB’s thing look normal and mild. In other words, when the whole SSB thing comes up, folks willl be saying, “well, at least it isn’t allowing victor/victoria into the pulpit” and vote for it. Get all the fight and energy out of the body on this issue, so that there isn’t much left to fight the SSB fight. It seems to me like a calculated smokescreen to take debate and energy away from the SSB issue.

Or is that just too calculated…?

[13] Posted by advocate on 7-8-2012 at 02:40 PM · [top]

Actually, letting Victor/Victoria into the pulpit isn’t nearly as bad as SSB or even women’s ordination - no matter what sort of operation he’s had, a man is still genetically a man, and if he’s celibate or is still married to his (female) wife, TECHNICALLY he could function as a priest.

[14] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 7-8-2012 at 02:48 PM · [top]

#14, I’d worry about what theology or pseudo-theology a Disintegrity activist would preach and teach. Even an All-American, red-blooded, heterosexual male can teach heresy.

So, it’s just as bad as SSBs. No comment on WO, out of respect for the bloggers.

Yes, he’s still a man, regardless of surgery, hormone therapy, and outward appearances. But, if he identifies as a woman, and if his wife accepts him as a woman, and if they have “relations” with each other, has he made his wife into a homosexual? I wonder how she’s holding up in all of this.

#8, #12. The woman who says she’s a male college chaplain looks, acts, and speaks a lot like a guy I know, who is probably an XY male, but is very effeminate.

Hearing the lesson from 2 Corinthians this AM, and putting it together with the Psalm 139 quote above, makes me wonder whether Paul was a trans, who didn’t get the benefit of surgery and hormones because he lived in the wrong era. That would be quite a thorn in the flesh. I wonder whether any of the Disintegrity activists preached on that today.

[15] Posted by Ralph on 7-8-2012 at 03:20 PM · [top]

advocate- the SSB issue is already lost in TEC- in 75-80 of the dioceses, it is already condoned by the diocesan bishop (look at the votes of the diocesan bishops in 2009, then add all the new revisionist bishops added since then).  Its a done deal.  No battle.  Somebody will try a procedural maneuver based on the “all bishops entitled to vote” clause of the constitution, but I’ll guarantee it is ruled out of order.
It is already OK in TEC to have a gay wedding, has been without question since 2009.  Just no “official” liturgy.

14- the resolution is not limited to men who have “become” women, also women who have “become” men, and all varieties of “gender expression.”

[16] Posted by tjmcmahon on 7-8-2012 at 03:21 PM · [top]

Please forgive me, but I am obviously a knuckle-dragging troglodyte… I am a bit confused… The homosexual crowd rammed through the whole idea of full inclusion because “God doesn’t make mistakes and since he made me gay, I can’t change who I am so you have to accept and celebrate who I am.”  Now, with the transgender crowd, they are saying, “God did make a mistake and made me a man/woman when I should have really been a woman/man.”

So which is it?  Does God make mistakes or not?  It seems the two arguments are mutually exclusive but I suppose the LBGT crowd have never been known for making consistent arguments.

I don’t even want to think about bisexuals, I think my head would explode.

[17] Posted by rbatts on 7-8-2012 at 03:44 PM · [top]

Rbatts, God doesn’t make mistakes, but ever since the Fall, nature does, and with depressing regularity - that’s why we have diabetes, blindness, cancer, and things like homosexuality, XY males and Turner’s syndrome women.

BUT, the LGBT crowd wants to have their cake and eat it too, by celebrating homosexuality as some sort of “gift” from God, while maintaining that sex-change operations are fine and dandy, because God - not fallen, imperfect Nature - can make mistakes, which we humans have the technology and wisdom to be able to “correct”. It’s enough to make your head spin…

[18] Posted by Cynthia Gee(AKA CJ/goldndog) on 7-8-2012 at 03:54 PM · [top]

Utter insanity, by any measure.

[19] Posted by banned4Life on 7-8-2012 at 10:56 PM · [top]

What this church needs is a few good ex-men.

[20] Posted by The Plantagenets on 7-9-2012 at 03:44 AM · [top]


Yup—my radar would go off for each of the people in the video—mostly with loud blaring foghorns

If you intend to remain in the Episcopal Church, it might be a good idea to carry one of these in your knapsack.

But don’t go setting it off during a sermon unless that becomes absolutely necessary.  LOL

[21] Posted by episcopalienated on 7-9-2012 at 07:33 AM · [top]

In this sick society it’s fashionalble to be LGBT or Q

Correct Nellie: but even more broadly, in our sick, sin-filled society, it is fashionable to be a victim.  Any kind of victim, because victimhood is a special way of saying “look at me”, “pay attention to me”, “I demand your attention and you have to grant me more status than I can otherwise get”.

It is a hard thing to do, but we need to pray for those who are so self-absorbed that they will go to nearly any lengths to play the victimhood card.

And it is a particularly destructive thing which they do, because it draws attention away from, and can even create animosity toward, the real victims in our society who are deserving of our attentions; the truly functionaly disabled.

This is what makes TEC’s response so pathetic and dangerous.

[22] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 7-9-2012 at 07:45 AM · [top]

Does anyone know how the vote for D019 went in the HOD?
D002 is as follows:
Yes: Lay 94, Clergy 95
No: Lay: 11 Clergy 16
Divided: Lay 5 Clergy 0

Shoudn’t be too hard to figure ouy the Nos with SC voting no. grin

[23] Posted by martin5 on 7-15-2012 at 10:19 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.