This afternoon was the most dramatic legislative session in the House of Deputies so far this convention, and I'm amazed at having the privilege of being there. Really big things got accomplished, but for now I want to focus in on one narrow aspect of the vote on A049, authorizing the provisional use of a rite blessing same sex unions.
The vote on this was done by orders, meaning that a majority of lay and clergy deputations had to vote for it in order for the resolution to pass. Most votes in the House of Deputies are taken by voice, and only the most contentious are done by orders. Likewise, yesterday's vote in full inclusion of transgendered people in the life of the church was also done by orders. So we have a fuller counting than usual.
While both measures passed by wide margins in both orders, the vote for full inclusion of transgendered people received greater support. 16 clergy deputations and 16 lay deputations opposed or were divided on D002, one of the two resolutions toward transgender equality. 26 clergy deputations and 24 lay deputations opposed or were divided on same sex unions.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that all the folks who opposed trans inclusion also opposed same sex unions. But that still leaves about 10 deputations in each order that supported trans inclusion but opposed same sex unions. I'm going to further infer that most of those folks are probably cool with LGBT people in the church, but remain uncomfortable with a rite that looks a lot like marriage.
I'm not going to speculate on their reasons here. I'm just going to encourage readers not to jump to conclusions about no voters. Remember that the next time someone tells you that they like gay people but have a problem with same sex marriage, it's not necessarily a cover for bigotry. They may be telling you the truth.
Here's the vote data:
D002 (via @dantetavolaro):
Lay 94 yes 11 no 5 divided
Clergy 95 yes 16 no 0 divided
A049 (via The Lead):
Lay 86 yes 19 no 5 divided
Clergy 85 yes 22 no 4 divided
You're absolutely right, Brendan. I think there is a legitimate position that this action should wait the theological reflection on marriage. This is a half-way action that is "neither fish nor fowl" in many ways. I'm not unhappy with it, but there is a case to be made that given the earlier decision to call for that work on marriage theology, this action is premature ("cart before horse" as one deputy put it).
ReplyDeleteAgreed on both counts. And, as one Deputy noted today, this is in fact an end-run around the Canons and BCP. The long view (leaving aside the notion of justice delayed is justice denied) suggests it would be more appropriate to turn an eye toward adjusting the BCP and the Canons and then fitting such a Rite within the Discipline and Worship.
ReplyDeleteBut, one does what one can.