December 19, 2014

July 7, 2012


Gender Identity and Expression Resolutions Pass HOB

Resolution D002 and D019 have both passed the House of Bishops

D002 TOPIC: CANONS
Affirming Access to Discernment Process for Ministry
RESOLUTION TEXT
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That Title III, Canon 1, Sec. 2 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church be hereby amended to read as follows: No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.

EXPLANATION
Title III, Canon 1, Sec. 2 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church states “No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.” This resolution would revise this canon by adding “gender identity and expression” to this list of protected categories of access, but not of right.

As we continue to grow in our understanding and embrace of all human beings, it is important for us to be specific in our naming of difference. This proposed revision is based upon our increased understanding and practice to respect the human dignity of transgender people - transsexuals, and others who differ from majority societal gender norms. Gender identity (one’s inner sense of being male or female) and expression (the way in which one manifests that gender identity in the world) should not be bases for exclusion, in and of themselves, from consideration for participation in the ministries of the Church.

D019 TOPIC: CANONS
RESOLUTION TEXT
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That Title I, Canon 17, Sec. 5 of the Canons of The Episcopal Church be hereby amended to read as follows: No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or and expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canons.

EXPLANATION
This resolution would revise Title I, Canon 17, Section 5 by adding “gender identity and expression” to this list of protected categories. This resolution is submitted as a companion to D002 (“Affirming Access to Discernment Process for Ministry”) because it makes sense to change the Canons in Titles 3 and 1 at the same time. As with D002, this proposed revision is based upon our increased understanding and practice to respect the human dignity of transgender people - transsexuals, and others who differ from majority societal gender norms. Gender identity (one’s inner sense of being a man, a woman, or something more complex) and expression (the way in which one manifests that gender identity in the world) should not be bases for exclusion
from the life of the Church at any level. As transgender people and their families increasingly come out within or find their way to congregations, their specific naming in our Canons, along with other groups who historically have experienced discrimination, will encourage congregations to deepen their understanding and widen their welcome, that we all might be empowered “to seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving our neighbors as ourselves.”


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

21 comments

Puhl-leeze, elect a transgender Bishop, then we’ll talk.

A real bi-sexual one would be nice too.  TEC is losing its edge.

[1] Posted by DietofWorms on 7-7-2012 at 06:09 PM · [top]

How did Duncan Gray vote? Does GC keep a record of how bishops vote? If not, Mr. Gray could claim to the good people of the Diocese of MS that he voted ‘nea’ rather than how he actually voted.

[2] Posted by All-Is-True on 7-7-2012 at 06:18 PM · [top]

Prayers for GC2012 here.  A prayer for gender identity anguish here.

[3] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 7-7-2012 at 07:13 PM · [top]

Sounds like NAMBLA got a big win here.

[4] Posted by Bill2 on 7-7-2012 at 07:38 PM · [top]

Clearly the unspoken criterion that will also be conspicuously ignored is any belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[5] Posted by Jeffersonian on 7-7-2012 at 07:47 PM · [top]

I’ve heard of a Boy Bishop, but not a Ladyboy Bishop. A new frontier for TEC.

While I hesitate to admit (outside of private confession) that I’ve seen The Hangover Part II, the fact is that this erudite film was my introduction to the katoeys of Thailand. (Poor Stu.)

http://www.cnngo.com/bangkok/life/miss-tiffany-universe-thailands-newest-transgender-queen-says-i-am-so-beautiful-887766

This is something I don’t understand. I do understand how L, G, and B can appear together in one acronym, but I haven’t figured out the T part. I hope the folks at GC understand it well enough to know what it is that they’re approving.

[6] Posted by Ralph on 7-7-2012 at 07:58 PM · [top]

<blockquote>No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of <blockquote> whatever. That should pretty much cover whatever you want to be now and in the future.

[7] Posted by martin5 on 7-7-2012 at 08:07 PM · [top]

<blckquote>No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.</blockquote>

This is the sentence used to *placate* the conservatives. Just wait until a conservative bishop does not allow a LBGTWRTYZ person to go to seminary or some such person does NOT get elected to vestry or whatever the position is not filled with this type of person. Heads will roll!

[8] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-7-2012 at 09:47 PM · [top]

I hope my bishop voted no to this nonsense!

[9] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-7-2012 at 09:47 PM · [top]

Folks, as I understand it, the Resolutions each passed by voice vote (Yeas and Nays), so unless a Bishop was sitting next to someone you are wondering about, and will tell you how that Bishop voted, you will never find out.

The Rules of the HoB specify that it takes the request of six Bishops to record the individual votes. Apparently that did not happen here. Because of the time it took to discuss the letter from Bishops Ohl and Buchanan, the HoB was way behind schedule, and had to hurry things through.

[10] Posted by A. S. Haley on 7-7-2012 at 10:11 PM · [top]

Mr. Haley,
I suspect many of us will find out how our bishops voted via the usual methods. So never fear. Now, explain why neither house uses electronic voting devices that could save them time. I saw the HoD repeat votes more than once because it was difficult to discern which had more votes. Does it take an amendment or resolution to use electronic voting devices? When I watched the video from both houses using yea/nay voice votes, I was incredulous. In the HoD, they went to green and red cards. sigh….

[11] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-7-2012 at 10:24 PM · [top]

SCBCL, it’s a very good question. ECUSA budgeted $2 million for its facilities at General Convention, and spent another $5+ million on its Office of Communication. One would think that somewhere in that $7+ million there would have been enough to install an electronic voting system.

For more insight into the “legislative machine” that was the HoB today, see this latest post from Bishop Dan Martins.

[12] Posted by A. S. Haley on 7-7-2012 at 10:30 PM · [top]

The government of these United States treats United States corporations as if they were United States persons and endows them with comparable rights, privileges and responsibilities.  Why then, should we exclude corporations from the discernment process?  If a corporation could be ordained, then it would only need be done, once.  The coproration could elect officers and directors, and we wouldn’t have to go through this messy business of approvals or ordinations or consecrations, as long as the customary assessments were current.  It would certainly streamline the delivery of services.  What is it we deliver, again?

[13] Posted by SkyFox on 7-7-2012 at 10:50 PM · [top]

RE: “The Rules of the HoB specify that it takes the request of six Bishops to record the individual votes.”

Right—and it’s readily obvious that we don’t have six conservative bishops who thought of how important it was to get each of the votes of the bishops on the record for what is an historic vote or are strategic enough to organize a request for a roll call vote.

Not even six strategic orthodox bishops.

SOP.

[14] Posted by Sarah on 7-7-2012 at 10:51 PM · [top]

Sarah, It would not have mattered if six bishops called for and requested individual votes to be recorded, the PB would have ignored the request and pushed on with the agenda. Why bother wasting your breath requesting something that will be ignored. It will be known soon enough who voted yes or no.

[15] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-8-2012 at 01:50 AM · [top]

Without individual votes recorded, they’ll all be able to go home and lie to the 10 people sitting in the pews in front of them.

Which, is EXACTLY what my bishop Creighton Robertson did to us in 2003.  Yes - in 2003, the votes were tallied but Robertson didn’t think enough individuals had the technology in place to uncover his vote and the lies by omission when he returned from GC.

[16] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 7-8-2012 at 06:55 AM · [top]

If they had electronic voting, then the people would know how their bishop voted. Somthing I think the majority would rather not publicize.

[17] Posted by martin5 on 7-8-2012 at 11:50 AM · [top]

There is a phrase that hardened ICU nurses use among themselves to describe a patient whose death is imminent: “He is circling the drain.”

The Episcopal Church is circling the drain.

Amen. So be it.

The good news is the Church of Jesus Christ is alive and well.

[18] Posted by Hosanna on 7-8-2012 at 01:41 PM · [top]

How would electronic voting make known which vote was from whom? The Diocese of SC has used electronic voting devices and as far as I could tell when the results are put on the screen, there is no name attached just tallies (as percents) of who or what got what % of the votes. The only way a name could be attached to each vote is a roll call vote where each individual is called by name and then gives their voice vote. At least that how it has worked in the Diocese of SC.

Martin5, If you know otherwise please explain. Thanks.

[19] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-8-2012 at 01:54 PM · [top]

Good for TEC. I have noted that cross-dressings Eskimo have never received adequate representation in anything. I would think this opens TEC up to their discernment.

[20] Posted by Don+ on 7-8-2012 at 03:36 PM · [top]

SC blu cat lady,

The answer is that it most likely would not identify how each voter voted, unless it were explicitly designed/configured to do so. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops uses electronic voting at each of their General Assemblies, and the voting is all by secret ballot, with the exception of voice or roll call votes.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[21] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 2-26-2014 at 03:28 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.