Traditional Anglicanism in America
Matt Kennedy
C055 (Same Gender Committed Relationships) Goes Down


I was able to speak to a friend of mine from VTS who is now a bishop who told me that the Ministry Committee rejected or recommended the rejection of C055...I was not able to clarify because he was in a hurry. Here is the resolution:
CURRENT VARIANT
Resolution: C055
Title: Same Gender Committed Relationships
Topic: Same-Sex Unions
Committee: 14 - Ministry
House of Initial Action: Bishops
Proposer: Diocese of Missouri

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That the 75th General Convention support and uphold persons in same-gender committed relationships of enduring love, mutuality, and fidelity; and be it further

Resolved, that the term "sexual orientation" in Title III, Canon 1, Section 2, shall protect all persons from denial of access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church solely on the basis of being in such a relationship.

I do not know why it was rejected. I imagine that it had to do with the huge number of same sex blessing resolutions flying around but normally, if I remember correctly, when a committee wants to make a resolution go away without rejecting it, they vote to "discharge". They did not do that here. I know that my friend was not in favor of the resolution and perhaps that was the sense of the entire committee. Wish I'd been there for the discussion.

After the meeting I took a look around the Hilton Hotel where most bishops and deputies are staying. I saw Bishop Robinson in his purple wedding shoes and, nearby, Susan Russell making plans for the Integrity Eucharist.

Fr. Michael Pipkin , also a former classmate, is leading this morning's "Mission Conversation". Michael+ is the guy who took charge of the congregation after the departure of the Falls Church from the Diocese of Virginia. I'm already late for that....

I'll post again in a few hours.



 
Comments:

We know from experience a defeated resolution can be amended and re-voted from the floor. And since the ARB is there, could there be an intervention? Hummmmm


Posted by Festivus on 07-09-2009 at 11:03 AM

So, this isn’t neccessarily good news?


Posted by PaulStead on 07-09-2009 at 11:06 AM

And aren’t there about fourteen other resolutions related to same sex unions and “rights”? It will be a long GC.


Posted by FenelonSpoke on 07-09-2009 at 11:50 AM

Maybe some revisionists voted against it because it wasn’t strongly and explicity worded enough to endorse sodomy.

After all, I’m in several same-gender, committed relationships of enduring love, mutuality, and fidelity.  My father, brothers, cousins, male friends….

It is just that not of those relationship are remotly erotic or sexual in nature.


Posted by AndrewA on 07-09-2009 at 12:12 PM

It’s possible the rejection was on entirely practical grounds.  This would have forced even conservative dioceses to endorse these behaviors, forbidding them from upholding Christian moral teaching.  I fully believe GC wants to enable those so desiring to live in defiance of Christian moral teaching, but I don’t think they yet plan to force even dissenters to endorse such lifestyles.  I’m figuring GC15 for that.

Also, even in dioceses which reject Christian moral teaching - probably most of them, at this point - this would have opened up a Pandora’s Box of lawsuits to those denied their “right” to ordination, or any other position.  Suing mainstream believers is one thing, but to have that weapon turned around on ECUSA - no way they’re going there.


Posted by Phil on 07-09-2009 at 12:28 PM

I counted 34 resolutions that point to GLBT… concerns. There are others that point towards diversity and inclusion.


Posted by Dr. N. on 07-09-2009 at 12:58 PM

Matt: M’thinks you should rephrase that headline… red face red face red face


Posted by cliffg on 07-09-2009 at 01:01 PM

cliff—thanks for the guffaw. I needed it.


Posted by Gator on 07-09-2009 at 01:07 PM

cliffg!  Dude!  Get your mind out of the gutter!  wink


Posted by Florida Anglican [Support Israel] on 07-09-2009 at 05:39 PM

I am given to believe that the rejection was for “technical” reasons not touching on the “merit” of the resolution, in that it attempts to interpret a canon by means of a resolution, and the thought being that if you want to interpret a canon in a certain way, change the canon to remove all doubt.


Posted by Fr Dan Martins on 07-09-2009 at 11:30 PM

One problem with it folks is that this is the 76th General Convention NOT the 75th.  Was this to be presented in Columbus, 2006 or Anaheim, 2009?


Posted by Dallas Priest on 07-11-2009 at 11:49 AM



Posted July 09, 2009 at 11:34 am
The URL for this article is http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/23936/

©2009 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.