Fla. Episcopal Diocese Rejects Gay Bishop

[demdave]

ORLANDO, Fla. - The Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida has voted to repudiate a decision by the denomination's national convention to confirm a gay man as bishop.



The central Florida diocese on Saturday also rejected a decision by the General Convention that said same-sex blessing ceremonies are consistent with church teachings.


Other dioceses have rejected the decision to approve Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as a bishop, but the central Florida diocese was the first to do so in a formal diocesan convention after a vote involving several hundred delegates.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=10&u=/ap/20030921/ap_on_re_us/episcopalians_gays_florida

[cherryperry]

1. Can anyone say, "It's Time For A Boycott"?

I knew that you could.

But, just who do we boycott?

And, just who is appropriate to do the boycotting?

Should only Episcopalians boycott since we non-E's should respectfully butt out of it?

I would like some input from others who are Episcopalian and others who are not.

While I wait, I am going to bookmark this, e-mail some gay groups and ask them for advice? I don't believe there's any prohibition on gay/non-gay participation in each other's struggles but I hesitate only because of the religious issue whereas we all are one but we are not all one religion, yet alone any religion, so I am hesitant to do anything other than this for now.

That's my 2 cents. c u ltr

[KoKo]

3. I'm still torn on this issue......wonderful PM's from our Gay DU'ers....

which made me "back down on Robinson" but on the other hand....I worry about the sanctity of Christian Marriage eremony.....being diluted because of "Gay Rights."

It's a very hard question....for those of us who believe Gay/Lesbians should have "survival rights, insurance rights, and employment rights....and all Civil rights........but we grew up in churches which said......."Marriage was between a Man and a Woman....to procreate children or to live within the sanctity and bonds of cannonical law."

It's as if everything we believed in and we abided by is to be "tossed over" because a "New Group" is demanding rights? And , we must give way for the new group because we are "uninlightened" or "old fogey...or bigots" for our beliefs....yes.....I understand that many of our Gay/Lesbian folks are saying "Hey! We are Christians, too.....and we are into committed relationships and want the santifying of the CHURCH to BLESS our UNIONS!"

Still.........I believe what I believe....and think that there needs to be a NEW CHURCH started.....to deal with this........and yet.....if I meet you in my church.....I will love you......

It's so hard... torn and "on the fence" still with all of this........it's a real moral delemna.......for sure........

How can we solve this.....I don't know.......there's much pain on both sides......

[xchrom]

4. koko -- i believe you will get your wish

but i have no love for any one who holds your beliefs -- those thoughts are as offensive to me as previous notions of inter-racial marriages. it's just hate -- that's all.
and you kid yourself if you think you hold love for people and hold the beliefs you do.

[Cappurr]

6. Koko

What you need to do is look at marriage the way it really is --both a state-santioned union and a religious one. You get a marriage licence from the state. That give you right and responsibilities. No religious ceremony is required. Many people simply have a civil ceremony.

No law can force your church or any other church to marry anyone. People are refused weddings by churches all the time. But no law should stop a church from performing a wedding ceremony if that is what the church wants to do. :shrug: And certainly no law should allow states to treat others differently because of sexual orientation. Call it civil unions if it makes you feel better....but gay people in relationships deserve the same protections as straight people.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. If no law should stop a church from performing a wedding ...

... should polygamy and polyandry be allowed? Having only ever met one man with 2 wives (an Arab), I don't know much about this (his life seemed insanely compilcated - 2 households, in different towns, and he worked in another), but there is some demand for it. And if a religion calls it a marriage, does the state have to follow? Or can the state limit you to being married to one person at a time?

From the state's point of view, what's special about 2 people? And should there be the presumption of sex - if the idea is to recognise 2 people supporting and loving each other, should siblings, mother and daughter, and so on, get recognition too? In Britiain, the level at which inheritance tax starts is about £250,000 - the price of a 3 bedroom house in London. Spouses do not pay inheritance tax; children do. If a daughter is living with, and looking after, her elderly mother, I'd say there's a good moral case for her inheriting the estate without tax, if married couples can.

There's so many cases and combinations in 'partnerships'. My instinct is that individual rights (visiting rights, power of attourney, etc.) should be set by an individual (and you can do them all at one go with a civil marriage certificate, which, like current marriage, can be to only one person (either gender) at a time - if you want to get complicated, you have to do all the paperwork yourself, like a will); tax advantages should only be tied to the bringing up of children; and religions should be free to perform what ceremonies they want - but this doesn't confer any civil rights. If that means splits in churches, that might not be a bad thing - there's obviously some fundamental ethical disagreements there.

For what it's worth, I am nominally a confirmed member of the Church of England, but am an atheist.

[burrowowl]

8. Marriage was

the last sacrament invented by the Church. It was origianally invented for the wealthy to make political alliances in the middle ages. The people couldn't afford marriage. Also, it is supposed the only one administered by lay people to each other and the priest is only the witness.
And ole Henry VIII didn't think much about marriage.
Marriage is also about making the procreators responsible for their offspring.
The partners responsible for each other. Why can't gays have this legal recognition so they can visit each other in the hospital, etc.?
It is the Xtian thing to do.

[Liberator_Rev]

2. They fuss over red herring issues so as not to fuss over

the REAL issues that concerned Jesus, the wealth and power of the rich, greed and selfishness!

See http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/challenge


See what Christ might say about the "Christian Coalition" & "Religious Right" imposters.

[fortyfeetunder]

12. You got that right, Liberator

And this is soooooooooooooooo red herring...If Bishop Gene was "openly gay"...well what about the ones who were "in the closet"...and there were a few gay bishops in the Episcopal church, they just didn't publicize their sexuality.

To quote Shakespeare...Much Ado About Nothing!

[roguevalley]

5. this is so sad. but then, I forget. each denom thinks

they own Jesus. God made everything
'in his own image'. I wonder what makes
men think they can challenge that?

dorks.

[searchingforlight]

7. I am Episcopalian and was a delegate to the convention that

elected John Howe Bishop of Central Florida. He is very evangelical in his approach to faith and is more a Assembly of God Episcopalian. I believe he would consider this a wound to the church.

As I distance myself from organized religion I feel more in tune with God and released from having a "leader" dictate or interpret what faith should support or be.

[Rowdyboy]

9. Koko, there is so much I want to say to you...

But it would be boring to most everyone here, so I'll pm you

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Meanwhile, back in Minnesota

we heard during the announcement part of the service at the Episcpal cathedral that 81 people have started the "new member" process at the cathedral since General Convention.

[Wednesdays]

11. In the Oklahoma diocese

there was one priest who grumbled about the decision, but on the whole it looks like everybody is taking in stride. The bishop is foursquare behind the decision, as is my priest. If there is a loss of membership, I am totally unaware of it. If anything, membership has increased over the past month!

[regnaD kciN]

13. No surprise -- Central Florida...

...is one of the most conservative dioceses in the Episcopal Church. I would expect several others (Pittsburgh, Rio Grande, San Joaquin, Fond Du Lac, Fort Worth and several other Texas dioceses) to make secession threats. Whether it will come to anything is anyone's guess...and, besides, they still make up a small minority of the total dioceses in ECUSA.