Prayer
Lee: We bishops met as appropriate in the attempt to have a conversation to find out our perspective about what might have a fabvorable hearing in bishops. We build on the resolution already before us and massaged the language. The copy of that is before you for conversation.
Candler: This is not a resolution or a proposal at this point. Copies are only for members of Committee 13
Members reading the draft presented by group of bishops
????: I appreciate resolve #2 that we would invite input from dioceses and individuals around the Anglican Communion and not just to our own resources
Smith: I think that is one of the things that came to the surface in the HOB yesterday
????: I like how the conversation we were having around the ACC--the way that is worded around the last resolve is nice. In the 3rd resolve I like the clarity of that third sentence. Here it allows marriage or rites to be set up for SS couples
????: what about the Interanglican Theological and Liturgical Council--was that part of the conversation
Smith: we thought it should go to an IU
Scott: In the 3rd resolve seems to imply that SSB or marriages would only be permitted in states that permit it. I would like to amend this to allow rites in places where there are not state supporting laws
Ruth: This refers to C051 which already acknowledges what is going on. Why not begin the phrase with C051 and then say: the ecclesiological authorities may authorize rites for SSB or marriages.
Smith: this was directly in response to a canonical issue that came to our attention
Lee: we should hear what that issue was
Sally: I think it is necessary to show that you are adding on an already passed resolution C051--otherwise it looks like you are restricting that prior resolution. If you are trying to clarify that C051 is meant for all places and then expanding the scope of C051 so that you are authorizing things then C051 would come first in the phrase
Smith: Our intent was not to narrow C051 but to refer to it as a relic of our previous conversations
Ruth: I would want to know the meaning of ecclesiastical authority?
Sally: Art 10 of the const as well as pg 13 both refer to bishop not ecclesiological authority, so I do not think that the ecclesiological authority has the authority we are talking about here. So to be consistent with article 10 and pg 13--ecclesiastical authority should read “bishop”
Ernesto: I would like to move as a resolution the document as it has been handed out
Second
Smith: the resolution is before us for consideration
Henry: Three remarks actually a motion 1. The original used the phrase holy unions rather than same gender commitments…that would be stronger language to me.
Ruth: are you talking about C056?
Henry: yes. I would like to substitute the words Holy Unions. 2. I think formal “consideration” rather than formal “adoption” 3. In the 3rd paragraph that phrase from the 03 convention seems to be the most difficult phrase because it says that we do not authorize rites. I do not think it would be wise to go back to that. Say rather: “may provide generous pastoral response.” I do not think we should refer back to that past.
Second
????: are you saying that in the communion “explore and experiences” is being seen as authorize?
Henry: Yes, an implicit authorization
Shannon: when you reference specifically the most difficult language of the past you are crafting legislation that will be difficult to pass because people will bring all the past baggage…
Lorrain: if we were to pass this what would be the implication for dioceses where there are no legal provisions for unions or marriages?
Jack: I have two concerns--this seems to me to limit the authorization to dioceses where these things are legal and second the removal of the word liturgical that the amendment would accomplish
Candler: I would be in favor of the amendment from Bishop Parsley. I think we have to have something that passes. If this is a way that we can get a resolution out of this committee and onto the floor of bishops…one thing I would ask is whether the bishops here can support what we send out
Smith: I think we can support this. We have talked about all standing at the podium to make the presentation
Brian: by taking the word liturgical out it makes the reading vague which may be intentional. That was the problem with the sentence from C051. It seems like we are providing a muddy thing here.
Scott: I think I am concerned. 1. That bishops and dioceses that do not have official legal sanction may be perceived as breaking the spirit of this resolution if they authorize blessings or marriage--would they be perceived as being in violation. 2. I have a problem with the church following the state. We are the church. We are following the state here rather than standing up and being the church. We need to lead not follow.
Andrew: This gives no difference for those of us in Cal. We could make it different by putting in the beginning a specific reference to domestic partnerships. At some level we must follow the state because our canons say that we cannot do any blessing of something that is unlicensed. In some sense we will always be following the state on that,
Smith: we have a lot of work to do.
Shannon: I’ll pass
Ruth: I think I heard my own bishop say that C051 has given him palace to stand in his diocese. I wonder if we pass this amendment that says that diocese in jurisdictions with same gender marriages or unions may do these things---does this still give you a place to stand?
Lee: Yes: I do not see this as precluding what was given to me through C051
Ernesto: There is a lot of baggage to that. I am worried about losing the pastoral language. I think we would have additional challenges with its removal
????: The state of Utah passed legislation defining marriage as between one man and one woman which is somewhat ironic but we would like to move into a position of authorizing blessings for same sex couples. What effect does the agreement of the bishops after Windsor who promised not to do these things?
????: to me it implies that bishops in other diocese do not need to have a pastoral response. I think it is too open ended.
Smith: let me say first of all that we cannot forget the first two resolves. These get us to het place over time to which many are speaking. 2. I think Brian was speaking about the middy situation. We are in a muddy situation and that does not change. I do not think this will represent in practice a retreat from what has been being done in any way.
Candler: just because we take recognition of C051 out of this resolution does not mean that we have lost C051
Jack: A process question, I wonder if this were to come out of committee and into the HOB whether there would be a lot of momentum to amend on Deputies and we would lose the whole thing.
Smith: that is a caution for the upper house
Candler: we are trying to avoid any floor changes.
Lowell: I wonder if we can resolve some of the questions if we say that “all bishops INCLUDING those in diocese within civil jurisdictions where same gender unions or marriage are legal may continue to meet the needs…provide pastoral support…:”
Is that a motion?
Yes
Second
Shannon: All bishops is all that is necessary--we can say in particular rather than including to make it more correct…
Is that a motion
Yes
Second…
Lee: I would agree with Shannon
Henry: I don’t want to be difficult. I cannot support that amendment. We have six states that have approved these things that is what we should speak to specifically. C051 already provides for the others in other states. I think it will pass that way.
Cynthia: Is the implication that C051 stands correct?
Sally: that is correct unless something here specifically overrides or undercuts it. What I am hearing is that it does not. C051 would be consistent with what we are speaking about here and that this would not limit it
Maggie Zeller: Would you be in favor of the resolve if with “all bishops” it says “may” in rather than “shall”
Henry: It would help but the issue is I think the specific legal situation
Call the question
Voting on the amendment to change in the sub amendment to changing “including” to “noting particularly”
[10:30:29 AM] Matt Kennedy says: Motion carries
Steve: it seems like we are changing the substance of the original motion. I think we are really risking getting this thing passed in the HOB
Missed the next speaker
Susan: If it is made clear that C051 is still in effect without getting it into the resolution and the narrowing would help get this thing through HOB that would be good but I want to make sure that C051 is included
Lorain: Would it be clearer back home if that second resolve said: “We are engaged in further sturdy”
I agree that could work next but we are on the third resolve
Raison: I agree with Susan. I appreciate Sloan’s comments. Let’s take this smaller narrower step rather than lose the whole thing
Marylyn: I wonder if we could put back the word “liturgy”. What are we going to “collect” if not liturgies
Is that a motion?
Yes
Second
????: I would like to hear how that flies with the bishops
Lee: It will raise objections quicker than without it.
Shannon: It is a question of degree and the way things build on one another. The first resolve really bolts out of the gate and if we bring that into the third resolve then it has the sense of being in the face of the rest of the communion that has asked us not to authorize a rite like that and jeopardize the way this thing can go in the HON
Andrew: the “liturgical” we are worrying about now is in the third resolve?
Yes
Melnyk: If the words “liturgical” are not included it would be helpful to me.
Henry: the first two resolves are talking about studying liturgies and rites and the third resolve talks about pastoral responses because we do not have liturgies yet…so it kind of flows well this way.
Candler: I caution us about over packing each resolve. Each one of these resolves is a significant step forward
Call the amendment regarding “liturgical”
Amendment fails
Back to the proposed substitute on the third resolve which would read… “Resolved, that…all bishops noting particularly those within diocese within civil jurisdiction where civil unions and marriages are legal may provide pastoral response”
Jack: a point for clarification. If I am recalling this correctly, this form is what will have more difficulty?
Henry: yes you are. This has “all bishops” in it,
Candler: Let me point out that the 4th resolve refers to “at such liturgies” which is somewhat ambiguous since we have removed the word liturgy from the third resolve.
No, it refers to the wording of the first two
Sally: if you want to deal with the concerns that have been raised…we could
We could return to the original amendment by Bishop Parsley
Paul: we have spoken about it. I have to go home to a gay and lesbian community that has heard me say “maybe next time”. As author of C051, it really means that we can’t…I expect to be asked “do you not have one blessing left father?” It is uncomfortable to disagree with my colleagues. Maybe it is best to let the convention decide what we take back rather than second guess all of this.
????: my concern is that this leaves my bishops with no generous response in Utah
Brian: I have the same concern. My bishops never saw C051 as giving permission so it would not help us.
Jack: If we were to approve the amendment on the floor which is on the floor, I am guessing that eh conversation we are having now would be had on the HOB and an amendment of that sort would be added there. I am wanting to support Lowell’s amendment and let the bishops do what they are doing
Chip: In 03 a similar res to the first resolve was defeated. We had a hard enough time in 03 just asking the SCLM to develop rites. This first resolve is incredibly significant
Call the question on the “All bishops in particular…” language amendment
Motion passes--the “all bishops language stands”
Call question on third resolve as amended
Motion called
Shannon: I was under the impression that the second resolve should read: with other diocese and individuals in the Anglican Communion that might wish to participate…”
Marilyn: I was just unclear what he word “churches” means?
Lee: It means provinces and there are already conversations going
Jack: I would like to propose a quick amendment to the second resolve after diocese add, “Congregations” and individuals.
Second
Amendment carries
Scott: I thought we decided that we would not use the theological committee of the HOB
Smith: that has changed
Lee: a question on grammar…
????: I would like to add the term “civil partnerships”
Motion carries
Question called for the entire resolution as a substitute for C056
This is a paraphrase, she was speaking very fast:
1.SCLM in consultation with HOB theological committee…collect and create liturgies for presentation at the next general convention
2. That the SCLM devise an open process for its work in this matter seeking input from all interested diocese and individual throughout the Anglican communion…
3. Further…that resolved, that…all bishops noting particularly those within diocese within civil jurisdiction where civil unions and marriages are legal may provide pastoral response”
4. Honoring the theological diversity no bishop or clergy shall be required or compelled to participate in any liturgy or pastoral response
5...missed it
Question called
Bishops: All vote yes….
Henry: I would like to make a minority report on the third resolve…if I can do that I will vote yes.
6 yes to 0 no
House of Deputies
1 no vote and 26 yes
Meeting adjourned--7:00-8:00pm tonight they will meet again
Sorry meeting is not adjourned...they did decide to have a meeting this evening at the times above
They are moving on to speak briefly about other members
Open hearing on D089 D083 tomorrow 7:30am
17 Comments •
Comments:
So the die is cast…
Deputies on the PLM Committee vote for it 26 to 1. And even the bishops on the committee vote for it 6 to 0. None of the fools can hide now and say they didn’t approve this fateful, disastrous resolution.
Ah, clarity. Sweet, honest clarity. No evasions. No ambiguity. No pretending to do one thing while really doing another.
I think it’s a good thing. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The separation was inevitable.
David Handy+