The Lead

Breaking: Washington state approves marriage equality

2012-02-09T00:52:46Z

The Washington state House of Representatives "voted to approve gay marriage Wednesday, setting the stage for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed" according to USAToday

By Elaine Thompson, AP House lawmakers vote on an amendment to a gay marriage bill Wednesday in Olympia, Wash.
The action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

The Washington House passed the bill on a 55-43 vote. The state Senate approved the measure last week. And Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to sign the measure into law next week.

Among working CofE clergy, LGB&T considerable in number

2012-02-09T00:25:00Z

The LGB&T Anglican Coalition has published significant information in advance of an event to be held at the Church of England's General Synod Thursday.

An Act of Witness will take place at General Synod on Thursday to draw attention to the many hundreds of LGB&T clergy who minister faithfully across the Church of England despite the institutional prejudice and suspicion they often face, and on whom the Church of England relies.
The Revd Benny Hazlehurst (Chair of the LGBT Anglican Coalition) said, "If all the LGB&T Clergy were to leave the Church of England, parochial and sector ministry in the Church of England would suffer major trauma, and the parish system in some parts of the country would face utter collapse."

The LGB&T Anglican Coalition has calculated that there are at least 1,500 LGB&T licensed clergy currently ministering in parishes, hospitals, diocesan offices and other ministries -‐ over 13% of the total.

London is home to a significant proportion with approximately 350 LGB&T licensed clergy -‐ 25% of the diocesan workforce, but snapshots of deaneries in other dioceses up and down the country have revealed significant numbers (10-‐15%) are typical.

Research by the union Unite in 2008 also showed that over 20% of hospital chaplains have same-‐sex partners and have moved into chaplaincy in part because they could be sure of equal treatment and support from their employer.

Yet the culture of the Church of England remains a hostile place for many LGB&T clergy who often have to hide their sexuality, and their treatment by bishops is inconsistent with some acknowledging same-‐ sex partners while others overlook them.

The event will take place in Dean's Yard from 08.45 am until 9.30 am on Thursday 9 February. Clergy members of the Coalition are available for interview beforehand.

Another step in female-bishop process in Church of England

2012-02-08T21:25:55Z

The process for bringing the possibility of female bishops to the Church of England has taken another wary step forward.

A code-of-conduct amendment to original synodical legislation by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and (supported in 2012 by the bishop of the Diocese of Manchester) has been substantially amended by various parties.

The central question now is how much flexibility a six-member panel will be granted in interpreting the allowable amount of "substantial" change. As now amended, this legislation does not grant blanket power to that group.

A two-thirds vote will be required at July's synod to continue moving ahead.

A few hours prior to the vote, Rev. Christina Rees, former Chair of Women and the Church, broke down the situation for Ruth Gledhill.

Guardian religion reporter Riazat Butt live-blogged day three of this Synod. One entry seems to sum up the moment.

Wow. OK. Well, in true Anglican fashion we are almost back to square one. General synod has voted to allow the House of Bishops to tinker with the legislation but not make substantial changes to it. As one person in the chamber said, it's as if the debate never happened. The traditionalists have this to say:
"We welcome the fact the general synod is open to the possibility of the House of Bishops amending the draft measure, and call upon the house to do so in a way that will provide properly for those unable in conscience to accept the oversight of women bishops. The archbishops' amendment is a long way from our original proposals for provision; what we are saying is that we are willing to work with it, or something like it, for the sake of the unity of the church. We are hugely grateful to Archdeacon Cherry Vann for moving the Manchester motion; she has shown great understanding, courage, conviction and love – love for God and for God's people. We give thanks to God for Archdeacon Cherry, and assure the House of Bishops of our prayers as they discern the right way forward for the Church of England."

Initial reaction from the pro-women lobby is that they are happy because they know the bishops can't dramatically change the draft law. They're not going to see a different law, that's over and that's what they wanted to avoid. It's all baffling.

Here is a timeline from Thinking Anglicans:

Initially the motion from Manchester was moved. The proposers of the other two motions have spoken, but will move their motions later. This procedure allows a general debate to be held on all three, before Synod moves onto debating and voting on each one specifically in turn (in the order 36, 35, 13).
4.50 pm All motions and amendments have now been moved. Voting will take place shortly.

5.05 pm Pete Spiers’ amendment (item 36) was carried on a vote by houses, voting figures below.

For Against Abstentions
Bishops 40 5 1

Clergy 122 70 1

Laity 107 85 4

Following this amendment, the text of item 35 (a proposed amendment to item 13), became:

35 (as amended by item 36) Leave out all the words after “That this Synod” and insert –

“(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods, and

(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval,
request the House of Bishops in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.”.

5.25 pm Item 35 (as amended by item 36) was carried on a vote by houses, voting figures below

For Against Abstentions
Bishops 26 15 5

Clergy 128 64 0

Laity 111 85 1

5.30 pm Item 13 (as amended by item 35) was then carried on a show of hands. Here is the final text of the motion as passed by Synod.

13 (as amended by item 35)

*That this Synod,

(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods, and

(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval,
request the House of Bishops in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.*

On racist threats to Archbishop of York

2012-02-08T18:25:00Z

At the end of last month, Archbishop of York John Sentamu, the second-ranking cleric in the Church of England, told The Telegraph marriage should strictly be a male-and-female thing. Criticism of the archbishop rang around the Internet.

Now, though, we know from Sentamu's publiclicst that

A large quantity of correspondence was received in response to the archbishop's interview with the Daily Telegraph, which touched on a wide range of issues.
Among many positive emails that he has received, there have been a small number of abusive and threatening emails of a racist nature which North Yorkshire police are investigating as hate crimes.

Particularly disheartening in light of how Sentamu expressed views on racism during the same series of interviews.

When I was a vicar there was a lady who didn’t want me to take her husband’s funeral because I was black. I took one funeral and at the end a man said to me, "Why did my father deserve to be buried by a black monkey?" We received letters with excrement in.
I used to chair the committee for minority ethnic Anglican concerns, and we seemed to be making some progress but that now seems to be going backwards. Where we have lost out is black people who had been realised Anglicans, who are now joining Pentecostal churches. That’s a huge drain.

Changing Attitude has condemned these communications:

Those who have sent abusive and threatening emails to the Archbishop are not modeling the teaching and pattern of Jesus Christ, who embodied the infinite, intimate, gracious love of God. We have been victims of homophobic abuse and know what it can feel like to be on the receiving end of abuse and threats. We pray for Dr Sentamu, his wife, and the staff at Bishopthorpe. No-one should be subjected to hate mail.

We at the Café join our voices to condemn actions that subject anyone, cleric or otherwise, to threats of physical violence, or that engage in unproductive discrimination. Whatever places the Body of Christ in peril should be prayerfully addressed.

Needless to say - but I'll say it anyway - this is a moment in the life of the Anglican Communion in which "cooler heads" are so desperately needed. Whatever gets us away from that can't possibly help.

Knights of Columbus' use of resources surprising to many

2012-02-08T15:55:00Z

The Knight of Columbus, the second largest Catholic organization besides the Church itself, appears to be deeply involved in contested political areas.

Many Episcopalians are familiar with the Knights of Columbus. The Catholic men’s organization has a reputation for parish involvement, volunteer service, and charitable contributions. They will be celebrating their 130th anniversary of their incorporation as a benefit society, since their founding by Father Michael J. McGivney, assistant pastor of St. Mary’s Church in New Haven and some of his parishioners by the Connecticut state legislature on March 29, 1882. Officially chartered as a fraternal benefit society, their website maintains that the Knights of Columbus is still true to its founding principles of charity, unity and fraternity. From their website:

All the good works we do are informed by our four core principles:

Charity - Our Catholic faith teaches us to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Members of the Knights of Columbus show love for their neighbors by conducting food drives and donating the food to local soup kitchens and food pantries, by volunteering at Special Olympics, and by supporting, both spiritually and materially, mothers who choose life for their babies. Knights recognize that our mission, and our faith in God, compels us to action. There is no better way to experience love and compassion than by helping those in need, a call we answer every day.

Unity – None of us is as good as all of us. Members of the Knights of Columbus all know that – together – we can accomplish far more than any of us could individually. So we stick together…we support one another. That doesn’t mean that we always agree or that there is never a difference of opinion. It does mean that – as a Knight of Columbus – you can count on the support and encouragement of your brother Knights as you work to make life better in your parish and community.

Fraternity – The Venerable Michael J. McGivney founded the Knights of Columbus, in large part, to provide assistance to the widows and children left behind when the family breadwinner died – often prematurely. The Order’s top-rated insurance program continues to do this today, as do individual Knights, who last year gave more than 10 million hours of their time to assist sick and/or disabled members and their families. In the Knights of Columbus, we watch out for and take care of one another.

Patriotism – Members of the Knights of Columbus, be they Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Cubans, Filipinos, Poles, or Dominicans, are patriotic citizens. We are proud of our devotion to God and country, and believe in standing up for both. Whether it’s in public or private, the Knights remind the world that Catholics support their nations and are amongst the greatest citizens.

The use of financial resources by the Knights of Columbus, then, of which many are unaware, has led to controversy, Adam Polaski writes in The Bilerico Project:

One of the primary functions of the group is to financially support organizations that align with the membership's views. That's all well and good when they're supporting, say, disaster relief in Haiti. But last year, news surfaced that in 2009, the organization had donated $1.4 million to the National Organization for Marriage, the anti-gay organization that's been named an official hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That single donation is almost half of the $3.5 million the organization spent on all of its "Community Projects" in 2009, which included contributing to relief efforts, sustaining food pantries, and helping homeless shelters.

Nicole Sotelo, in the National Catholic Reporter, has pointed out that this is one of many controversial focuses by the Knights of Columbus on a national level:

Among the "community projects," the Knights contributed $5,000 to disaster relief in Indiana and $3,000 to the community soup kitchen in New Haven, Conn., where the organization is headquartered, according to the 2010 Annual Report of the Supreme Knight. This deserves applause, until you learn that under the same category of "community projects," they financed a $530,000 contribution to the Becket Fund, an organization of politically controversial lawyers. Do these lawyers really need the Knights' charity?

Additionally, in 2009 and 2010, Knights officials contributed $200,000 as noted in annual reports to Vox Clara, the bishops' committee responsible for turning back the clock on the liturgy and implementing the recent controversial language changes in the Mass. They have been a significant funder of the committee since 2006.

Over the same time period, the Knights donated almost $1.2 million to fund the bishops' newly created committee that works against equal protection for gays and lesbians and dubbed it "charity" in their annual report.

One of most stunning revelations, laments Sotelo, is the Knights contributions (around $500,000 annually) towards the Catholic Information Service, which goes beyond normal church teaching:

For example, on the topic of same-gender orientation, the Knights' pamphlet ignores that the bishops acknowledge homosexual orientation and instead purports: "... The only genuinely [sic] sexual orientation is heterosexual. ... There are no homosexuals but only heterosexuals with a homosexual problem" (excerpt from Same Sex Attraction: Catholic Teaching and Pastoral Practice, pg. 6).

In the Knights' pamphlet on women, the author writes that the "the key feature of femininity [is] receptivity ... to accept and affirm everything simply as it is. This is contrasted with the masculine soul, which reflects God's creativity, and which has been fashioned to take initiative -- to 'make' and to 'do'" (excerpt from The Gift of Woman, pg. 11, italics not mine).

Where do top officials of the Knights acquire the resources to fund all this programming? Take a look at your insurance policy or your yearly charitable contributions. You may be indirectly supporting some of these programs.

As word spreads about what a small circle of high-level Knights are doing with the annual "charitable contributions," this reputable fraternity could lose the trust of supportive Catholics. The Knights' reputation could be lost not only if they continue funding programming that goes against what the majority of Catholics believe, but funding what is disproportionate to their claim of serving the most vulnerable.

It is extremely disappointing to see this change of focus from a historically worthwhile group: one that still boldly proclaims "In service to One. In service to all."

Hate reappears in Ugandan Parliament

2012-02-08T12:24:23Z

UPDATE 2: David Bahati has talked to The Guardian, saying

...the confusion over his bill's content resulted from ignorance about Ugandan parliamentary procedure. He said he had to resubmit the bill in its original form but amendments had been agreed last year and accepted.
These included a decision to drop references to the death penalty, originally mandated for "serial offenders" or people found guilty of a number of other homosexual acts. Bahati said life imprisonment terms contained in the first bill had also been dropped.

"We are reducing the prison sentences to two to seven years. Even the life imprisonment is not there," he told the Guardian by telephone from Uganda, adding that the bill would take into account what "other people say."

This contradicts a news report from NTV which maintains the criteria for the death penalty and lifetime imprisonment remain intact.

More tipping-of-the-hat to Warren Throckmorton's recent reportage.

UPDATED: The Uganda Media Centre has cried uncle, calling David Bahati an irrelevant "back bencher." A release says the death-penalty provision has been stripped out of the proposed legislation, though we don't have further proof beyond the release itself so far as we are aware. The release also says, in essence:

(a) look to other countries if you need a distraction

(b) facilitating the legislative process of democracy is not to be confused with democracy itself

and (my favorite)

h/t to Warren Throckmorton, who succinctly notes, "life in a Ugandan prison is also called for in this bill for any homosexual intimacy."

ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL BILL February 08, 2012
RESPONSE TO INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM

OF DEBATE ON ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL BILL

Uganda has today been the subject of mass international criticism as a result of the debate on the Anti-Homosexual Bill at parliament. What many of these critics fail to convey is the bill itself was introduced by a back bencher. It does not form part of the government’s legislative programme and it does not enjoy the support of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet. However as Uganda is a constitutional democracy, it is appropriate that if a private members bill is presented to parliament it be debated.

Cultural attitudes in Africa are very different to elsewhere in world, 2/3 of African countries outlaw homosexual activity and 80% of east African countries criminalize it. Whilst on a global level more than 80 countries outlaw homosexual acts. Contrary to reports, the bill before parliament even if it were to pass, would not sanction the death penalty for homosexual behavior in Uganda.

Many international governments and politicians, who have criticized Uganda for debating this private members bill, remain mute in the face of far graver and far more draconian legislation relating to homosexuality in other countries. One might ask for example, if Uganda enjoyed as close a relationship with the US and European countries as Saudi Arabia (which sentences homosexuals to corporate and capital punishment) would we have attracted the same opprobrium as a result of allowing this parliamentary debate.

Unlike many other countries, no one in Uganda has ever been charged with the criminal offence of homosexuality. Moreover the main provisions of this bill were designed to stem the issue of defilement and rape which in the minds of Ugandan’s is a more pressing and urgent matter that needs to be addressed.

As a parliamentary democracy this process of debate will continue. Whilst the government of Uganda does not support this bill, it is required under our constitution to facilitate this debate. The facilitation of this debate should not be confused for the governments support for this bill.

Fred Opolot
Executive Director

===

After collecting dust in the prior session of Uganda's Parliament, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been returned to active consideration by MP David Bahati. In spite of some reporting, it appears the bill has been reintroduced in its original form, which keeps the death penalty intact.

CNN:

"This is a piece of legislation that is needed in this country to protect the traditional family here in Africa, and also protect the future of our children," said David Bahati, the lawmaker. "Every single day of my life now I am still pushing that it passes."
In addition to punishing homosexuals, it also proposes years in prison for anyone who counsels or reaches out to homosexuals, a provision that would ensnare rights groups, they said.

"It aims to criminalize the 'promotion' of homosexuality, compels HIV testing in some circumstances, and imposes life sentences for entering into a same-sex marriage," Amnesty International said in a statement Tuesday. "It would also be an offense for a person who is aware of any violations of the bill's wide-ranging provisions not to report them to the authorities within 24 hours."

New Vision:

There was excitement at Parliament Tuesday afternoon after the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009 was re-tabled for consideration....
MPs applauded as Ndorwa West MP David Bahati took to the floor to re-introduce the controversial Bill for reference to the appropriate committee.

After re-tabling the Bill, MPs both on the ruling side and the opposition gave Bahati a standing ovation. “Our Bill, our man,” the legislators chanted.

O-blog-dee managed to speak with Bahati and reports the same rhetoric as the last go-around. A sample:

I asked Bahati about tourism, “are you concerned people will stop visiting Uganda if you pass the Bill?” He said, “no Uganda has been voted the best destination in Africa last year. I am not worried about that.”
He told me that the purpose of the Anti-homosexuality Bill is to “protect our children from promotion of that behavior.” I then asked what about consenting adult in private. He said that is outlawed “because they are doing the wrong thing.”

I asked him to explain how that fell into the reasoning of promotion and he was unable to answer, instead changing back to the same repetitive rhetoric: “We cannot debate the freedom of our country to make laws to protect our children.”

This blogger's best prediction is that if the thing ever makes it out of committee consideration, it could have its day and be passed forward to President Museveni, who would veto it. That would return it to Members of Parliament, who could override the president.

We urge you therefore to contact your elected officials in Congress, in state government, or even at the White House (remind President Obama that he already has a stated position) and tell them to apply whatever pressure they can bring in order to permanently push the Anti-Homosexuality Bill out of the Ugandan Parliament.

Bishop Robinson, in the Boston Globe, defends current NH marriage equality law

2012-02-08T01:00:00Z

With what appears to be a bit of irony, just as Bishop Budde's article discusses the role religion plays in the same-sex marriage debate in Maryland, Bishop Robinson makes it clear that religion should not be the cause of undoing marriage equality in New Hampshire:

While we are “one nation under God,’’ no one set of religious values is or ever has been the basis of the law of our land. Theological questions about same-sex marriage may be an issue for many lawmakers, and while I respect their faith, I want them to consider that these important religious questions should remain in the religious sphere and out of the State House.

That’s because while our government cannot impede the right to the free exercise of religion, no particular religion has the right to impose its values on our society. In fact, different religions view this matter differently, with some embracing their gay and lesbian congregants who want to join in marriage, and others rejecting it altogether.

Is this an argument that counters Bishop Budde's point? I think not. Bishop Budde addresses classic religious arguments against same-sex marriage: arguments that keep people from entering conversations about treating people equally.

Bishop Robinson's reminder is that one religious system is not the law of the land: and that the teachings of a particular religion should not be used to legislate.

It's worth noting that, in conclusion, New Hampshire's current law reflects religious thought in general:

There is no moral, logical, economic, or legal reason that this law, which almost 4000 individuals have now taken advantage of, should not be left in place. Sixty-four percent of our fellow citizens agree, according to a recent statewide survey. The law has strengthened New Hampshire families, not harmed them, and that’s a basic tenet of all major religions.

Some lawmakers suggest that this bill is a compromise by granting gay and lesbian couples civil unions. But there’s a fundamental problem with that - civil unions are not equal to marriage and in New Hampshire we don’t treat one group of citizens one way and another group another way. Marriage equality doesn’t need to be “fixed’’ because nothing replaces equality. Nothing.

Washington Post article by Bishop Budde calls for marriage equality in Maryland

2012-02-07T21:00:14Z

The Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, Bishop of Washington, wrote a powerful article for "On Faith". Here is an excerpt:

Jesus said, “you will know people by their fruits.” St. Paul wrote: “The fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” Many of us in the Episcopal Church, which I serve as a bishop, know same-sex couples whose relationships can only be described as holy, and thus we have come to support the blessing of such unions. They stand in stark contrast with many exploitative and casual patterns of sexuality that both heterosexual and homosexual Christians are right to reject.

The struggle to determine what sorts of people God approves of is an ancient one. Jewish Christians, the original followers of Jesus, struggled over whether to include non-Jews into their fellowship. Gentiles, according to Jewish law, were unclean. But in the Acts of the Apostles, Peter was led by a vision to the home of a Gentile family who were eager to learn of Jesus’s teaching. After sharing a meal with them, he makes one of the most memorable declarations in all of scripture: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality.”

Every generation, it seems, has struggled to include someone previously thought to be outside the realm of God’s grace and full humanity. In our time, we in the Episcopal Church have come to understand that God shows no partiality between straight and gay people. Not every same-sex couple is a paragon of holiness, but neither is every heterosexual couple. Life long relationships are hard, which is why the support of religious and societal institutions is so important.

From the convictions of my Christian faith, and in support of my gay and lesbian friends whose relationships inspire me in my marriage, I urge Marylanders to join me in supporting the marriage equality legislation currently under consideration in their state.

Breaking: Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional

2012-02-07T15:00:23Z

Update: Proposition 8 has been overturned. The Los Angeles Times has the story.

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.
The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.

The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

Lisa Leff filed a story which is appearing at Huffington Post, and includes the following:

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted," the ruling states.
The panel also said there was no evidence that former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker was biased and should have disclosed before he issued his decision that he was gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.

The Rev. Canon Susan Russell, past president of Integrity released the following statement:

Today’s 9th Circuit Court decision is not just a victory for gay and lesbian couples in California – it is a victory for all Americans who believe that the “liberty and justice for all” in the pledge we teach our children really means ALL.

It is also a victory over those who erroneously believe that the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment gives them freedom to write their theology on marriage – or anything else – into our Constitution.

And make no mistake about it: There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the days to come from those in the marriage discrimination business about how their freedom of religion is being trampled on by today’s decision for equality. But the truth of the matter is they are just as free today to decide for themselves whether God equally blesses our marriages. What the 9th Circuit Court said today is that they are NOT free to decide whether the Constitution equally protects them.

A Roman Catholic priest is just as free to NOT marry a gay and lesbian couple as he is to NOT marry a divorced couple. Meanwhile, and in my congregation – All Saints Pasadena – we can now get back to the business of offering equal pastoral care for ALL couples who come to us for the sacrament of marriage – because today’s ruling affirms that the First Amendment protects not just freedom of religion but freedom from religion.

But for all the joy in today’s decision, let us not forget however that an opposite sex couple married in California immediately receives 1138 federally protected rights that the same sex couple next door doesn’t have – and won’t have until we Dump DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act.)

So today is a day for rejoicing here in California. And tomorrow we get back to work making marriage equality happen for all Americans.

Cathy Lynn Grossman writes in USA Today that religious leaders are calling Prop 8 ruling 'insult' or 'victory':

Insulted, outraged -- or unavailable. That's how some major religious voices responded Tuesday when the 9th Circuit Court upheld a lower court ruling that overturned California's ban on gay marriage, Proposition 8. Those who back same-sex marriage, however, were quick and gleeful in public reaction.

The court said gay marriages cannot resume in the state until the deadline passes for Proposition 8 sponsors to appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit. If such an appeal is filed, gay marriages will remain on hold until it's resolved.

Our earlier coverage:

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that there are 3 possibilities for the 9th Circuit court:

A broad ruling that affirms a federal judge's 2010 conclusion that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to wed their chosen partner would invite review by a high court that frequently overturns decisions by the more liberal Ninth Circuit.

But the panel might also overturn Prop. 8 on more limited grounds: that California, apparently because of its voters' disapproval of homosexuality, had withdrawn marital rights granted to same-sex couples by the state Supreme Court less than six months earlier.

The court could also find that California had no rational basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples after adopting laws and policies providing gays and lesbians with an array of other rights in areas like employment, housing and child custody, a ruling that would apply to a limited number of states.

The appeals court panel also plans to rule today on a separate but related issue raised by Prop. 8's supporters: whether the now-retired Walker should have been disqualified from the case, and his ruling set aside, because he did not disclose before the trial that he is a gay man with a longtime partner whom he could marry if same-sex marriages were legalized.

A helpful graphic can be found on The Friends of Jake blog (created by gaymarriedcalifornian.blogspot.com). It's been updated from previous versions, but I still find it sad that the figure against marriage equality is in clergy collar...

No Plan B if C of E rejects legislation on female bishops

2012-02-07T12:43:27Z

Riazat Butt of the Guardian reports from the General Synod of the Church of England:

A senior cleric has warned there is "no Plan B" if the Church of England rejects legislation allowing women to become bishops, claiming such a move would lead to a "substantial period of shock".

The Right Rev Peter Price was addressing supporters of female clergy before a General Synod meeting this week that will decide what provision, if any, there should be for people unwilling to accept women's leadership. Price, who is bishop of Bath and Wells, was asked what would happen if the General Synod voted against the legislation in July.

He replied: "I haven't got a clue. I think we will be in such a critical place that it is extremely difficult to see how we will proceed without going through a substantial period of shock.

"I wish I could say there is a plan B. I don't think there is. The implications of this going down are so far-reaching that we almost dare not face it."

For Anglicans who want to avoid decisions

2012-02-06T23:25:12Z

Today in Comparative Ecclesial Polities, we look at the General Synod of the Church of England, which is now in session, but spent most of today just warming up. Riazat Butt, soon to be late of the Guardian, kept this live blog on the day's events.

Required reading for today's installment comes from Butt's colleague at the Guardian, Andrew Brown. It begins:

Returning from a General Synod meeting in York with a story to write, I once typed "The Church of England yesterday decided", and fell immediately into a profound sleep over my laptop. I was entirely sober at the time. It's just the effect that synod has; and I'm beginning to wonder whether this isn't part of its real purpose.
The General Synod now meets only twice a year. This week it's in Church House, in Westminster. In theory it is there to make the decisions that parliament can no longer be bothered with about the Church of England; but in fact it's a device to make decision-making more or less impossible.

Some Christian churches can't make decisions because they don't have decision-making bodies. The Baptists are the best example of this. Some can't make big decisions because they think that all the interesting ones were made by about 787 AD. That would be the Orthodox – although they do in fact meet in synods to discuss other matters. The Roman Catholics don't believe in democracy as a form of church government, but the bishops gather every century or so to make decisions too large even for a pope.

But the Church of England can't even decide whether it wants to make decisions. The arguments about women bishops that will take up much of this week illustrate the point very well, because what the opponents deny is that the synod should ever be capable of deciding who is or isn't a bishop. For that matter, they don't believe that the synod should decide who is or isn't a priest. So what appear to be wrangles about what decision to make are in fact disputes about whether to make a decision at all.

Is there something about unicameral legislatures that include bishops, clergy and laypeople that bring on this kind of paralysis, or are the problems Brown sees with the synod particular to the Church of England?

Uganda's awful anti-gay bill is back

2012-02-06T22:14:30Z

Warren Throckmorton links to a Ugandan TV report suggesting the bill may be taken up in Parliament tomorrow.

An elevator speech for the Episcopal Church

2012-02-06T19:06:42Z

In a conversation on the email list-serv maintained by the Episcopal Communicators, a member noted that he had recently come across some language describing the church in its brand style guide. Turns out he was referring to the "brand strategy statement. It reads:

"For those looking for more meaning and deepened spirituality, The Episcopal Church offers honest and unconditional acceptance, which removes barriers to Jesus Christ and permits belonging to an authentic church community."

A brand strategy statement is not the same thing as an elevator speech--a verbal description of your cause/organization etc., that you could recite to someone in the course of an elevator ride--but, like an elevator speech, it is an attempt to distill what is best and most attractive about your organization into a couple of punchy sentences.

What would your elevator speech for the Episcopal Church sound like? How about your elevator speech for your parish?

Reforming General Convention? Or watering it down?

2012-02-06T16:09:24Z

The Diocese of Georgia passed a resolution over the weekend calling up on the church to re-imagine General Convention. This section interested me.

By design, General Convention is the largest gathering of the people of the Episcopal Church. This extraordinary opportunity should be used to empower and equip the church and its leaders for mission and evangelism in God’s world by creating a balance between legislative deliberation and a focus on renewal of the church. This can be accomplished by providing training and inspiration for mission and evangelism through intentional leadership training, sharing of “best practices”, storytelling, networking and engaging in mission in the host city – being the hands and feet of Jesus Christ: A community in action.

I am in favor of training more people in the church to talk about their faith. If it can be demonstrated that this is best done at large national gatherings, rather than on the regional, diocesan or parochial level, I'd have no problem supporting a churchwide initiative. I have two problems with this proposal, however. The first is that we vote for deputies to represent us in a legislature. We should not give them other duties for which they might not be especially qualified. The person who excels as a representative is not necessarily the same person who excels as an evangelist of teacher of evangelists. The second is that one of the prime complaints about the convention is that there is not enough time to consider all of the legislation. Giving the deputies additional duties will only make this worse.

So, two categories of questions to get our conversation started:

1. What is the best way to train people to speak about their faith? National gatherings? Provincial meetings? How will it trickle down to people in parishes?

2. Does anybody else think that the emphasis on doing other things at General Convention is an attempt to diminish the convention's authority? At the last Executive Council meeting, Bishop Stacy Sauls, who preached at Georgia's convention, called for a conversation about church restructuring in which "nothing was off the table." I find this heartening, but so far, nothing is on the table except minimizing the opportunities for lay people and clergy to participate in the governance of the church.

As someone who thinks the House of Deputies played the leading role on a number of the most important issues to confront the church in recent decades, I have a significant problem with this, but I sense that I am in a minority. What's good about tilting the balance of authority in the church toward the Office of the Presiding Bishop?

In Indianapolis, standing up to human trafficking

2012-02-06T10:55:00Z

From the sexual-slavery eradication project Shared Hope International, a grim reminder about what also happens other than the Big Game when folks gather to celebrate their teams.

Pimp-controlled commercial sexual exploitation of children is linked to escort and massage services, private dancing, drinking and photographic clubs, major sporting and recreational events, major cultural events, conventions, and tourist destinations.
Sporting event, convention and concert attendees are a target market for commercial sex venues. Advertisement cards are handed out to attendees promising VIP treatment at the various “Gentlemen’s Clubs” and discount entry cards are distributed at sporting events, concerts and other events. Additionally, hotel’s courtesy guest shuttles have been observed providing transportation for guests to strip clubs, further facilitating the commercial sex market.

Barb Boerggoetz of The Indianapolis Star writes that although Indianapolis and the Super Bowl certainly do not form exceptions, thanks to help from some groups of women religious (in particular the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Jospeh in La Grange Park, Tipton, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan), attacking the problem might lead to less pervasive practice.

From La Grange Suburban Life:

Hotels in the Indianapolis area are better equipped to recognize and help victims of human trafficking thanks to an initiative launched before Sunday’s Super Bowl by a group of 11 orders of Catholic nuns, including those in La Grange Park, in collaboration with state and local officials and organizations.
Among them were members of the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph in La Grange Park, Tipton, Ind., and Kalamazoo, Mich.

Of the 220 hotels that the women contacted, 200 hotel mangers provided responses to questions asked by members of the religious orders. As a result of these phone calls, seven hotels requested training prior to the Super Bowl to help their employees recognize trafficking situations and how to assist victims.

“We are very gratified by the responses from hotel managers and pleased that they made time to talk and work with us in this very busy season,” said Immaculate Heart of Mary Sister Ann Oestreich, co-chair of the Coalition for Corporate Responsibility for Indiana and Michigan.

A few facts mentioned in Boerggoetz's article:

Human trafficking (sex and labor) is tied as the second largest and fastest growing criminal industry in the world, just behind the arms trade.
$32 billion is generated annually by the human-trafficking industry.
About 75 to 80 percent of human trafficking is for sex.
Nationally, 2,515 investigations into trafficking were opened by Department of Justice Anti-Trafficking Task Force from 2008 to 2010, including 239 in the Midwest; 76 of those were opened by Indiana law enforcement or service providers.
The average age children are first used/manipulated into prostitution is 12 to 14 years old.