by the Revd Dr. Cameron Partridge

What a whirlwind the last couple of days at General Convention have been. Friday the news of the Supreme Court’s decision blew through Convention like wildfire. People are absolutely jubilant. And then yesterday Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina was elected the next Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church on a landslide, first ballot vote. He follows Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as a pioneer: she has been the first woman elected to this position, while he is the first African American. He is an firey, articulate preacher and evangelist, the kind of inspiring leader you want to get up and follow to the ends of the earth. Yesterday the House of Deputies also discussed C019 “Establish Response to Systemic Racial Injustice”. As Deputy Jennifer Baskerville Burrows wrote, “To hear a white member of the [Social Justice and U.S. Policy] committee say words to the effect of, “we have the chance to make race the centerpiece of the next triennium” signals a shift.  If funded, resolution C019 will put real muscle (to the tune of $1.2 million) behind the work of racial reconciliation for both justice and mission strategy.”

Amid this intense, spirited movement, two of the resolutions that TransEpiscopal has been particularly tracking have also made their way through the open hearing process.

D037 came first. This is the resolution that calls for a study of the canons to clarify that and/or how people who have legally changed their name(s) can have their names amended in church records and registries and church certificates reissued. It came to the committee on Governance and Structure last night amid several other complex resolutions on the possibilities of restructuring aspects of our Church’s governance. To begin, the chaplain of the committee lead us in prayer and a hymn, one of my favorites: “God is love and where true love is, God [Godself] is there.” When our resolution came up, something like six or seven of us testified in support of it. No one testified against. We told stories of how we or people we know have been impacted in our full access to the life of the Church by not being able to change records in a consistent way, or to have certificates reissued. After we were finished, a number of deputies and bishops came up to us, thanking us for our testimony. As the Structure committee sifts through all the complexities of the restructuring resolutions, our stories were, as one committee member later related to me, very straight forward and incarnational. We hope it moves out of committee and to one of the houses quickly.

Then twelve hours later, at 7:30 this morning, we gathered again to testify in support of D036. This resolution, on “Adding a Name Change Liturgy to the Book of Occasional Services”, came to the Committee on Prayerbook and Liturgy. Once again we began and ended with prayer and song, and once more we had a great group of people prepared to testify. I am hoping that some of these folks will write about their experiences as well. I lead off my own testimony by recounting an experience I had in 2001 when I first claimed my name. I described how I passed a difficult night, sharing the name Cameron with loved ones. When I went to church the following morning and was asked to do the first reading, I had been stunned to find myself standing before the congregation reading the story of Jacob wrestling with the divine stranger who then gave him the name Israel. Flash forward several years, my testimony continued, to my years in parish ministry in which I had a trans parishioner who wanted to take on his chosen name in the context of the congregation. And so I put together a rite as a component of the Sunday liturgy, drawing in part upon the name change rite in Changes: Prayers and Services Honoring Rites of Passage that is the subject of D036. To be able to take up one’s name in the midst of one’s congregation, to be named and seen in that way, can be a profound recognition of the deep spiritual significance of embodying one’s name, I concluded. I was also struck that in addition to the other trans folks who testified—and, again, there were several powerful speakers – there were non trans ones as well, lifting up the flexibility of this resource to be used by many people. These were folks in a religious order who talked about the possibilities of claiming a new name in connection with religious life. This rite is additionally applicable to situations like adoption or divorce/remarriage. I especially appreciate that this resource came out of indigenous Episcopal congregations, communities that have long recognized the spiritual significance of names and particularly of taking on a new name later in life.

We now wait for D036 and D037 to go to their houses of origin. The name change liturgy resolution should first travel to the House of Bishops, while the name change canon study resolution should head to the House of Deputies. Meanwhile a number of resolutions related to liturgical marriage equality are coming forward to the Houses of Bishops and Deputies as well. Stay tuned on all of these fronts.

Amid all of this, the hymn from the beginning of the D037 hearing continues to echo in my ears: God is love and where true love is, God Godself is there.

As TransEpiscopal celebrates today's Supreme Court decision honoring marriage equality, and as we join in supporting efforts toward full liturgical marriage equality in The Episcopal Church here at General Convention, we offer this essay from Iain Stanford who brings a trans angle to this conversation.

by Iain Stanford

Over the last several weeks, the blogosphere and Facebook have been alive with different opinions, questions and concerns about the various resolutions regarding  marriage equality in The Episcopal Church. As I read the various arguments, I keep wondering if people realize that we already have same sex couples in The Episcopal Church who were married using the service for Holy Matrimony in the Book of Common Prayer. Let me explain.

At the 77th General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 2012, the church spoke loudly in support of transgender people as full members of our Church by adding gender identity and gender expression to the non-discrimination canons. As a trans person, though, the canons for marriage and the use of the BCP can become a bit, well, surreal.

Take for example the fictional couple of Jim and Francine. On their day, they walk through the red doors and up the aisle, the celebration begins with the words from the BCP, “Dearly Beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony.” (BCP 423) And a little later, the priest pronounces, “they are husband and wife.”  (BCP 428) Now several years go by, and Francine slowly acknowledges all those feelings when it comes to gender. All her life, people have asked, “are you a girl or boy?” She talks to friends, therapists, and yes, even her priest. Eventually, she knows that God is calling her to move forward, to become Francis. She does! After transition, they are now Jim and Francis. They live into what it means to be a same sex couple in society. And yes, they are still married in the eyes of the Church.

I can hear some people say, “But they came to the altar like any other heterosexual couple.”
​
Which begs the question: what is the connection between the outward and visible sign or signs of gender and marriage?

As the 78th General Convention approaches this week, here is a brief review of trans legislation that has come before the Convention in years past. As you can see from the shift between 2006 and 2012, and as previous blog posts narrate, we have come an incredibly long way. The five resolutions listed under 2015 begin to point to much work that we still need to do.

2006 

1)    C030 -- The Diocese of California referred a resolution to General Convention calling for the addition of “gender identity and expression” to the list of non-discrimination demographic categories in Canon III.1.2. The Committee on Canons took it up as resolution C030 (“On the Topic of Amending Canon III.1.2 [Of the Ministry of All Baptized Persons]”). As the legislative history reports, the committee recommended discharge and re-referral to the Committee on Ministry. As far as we know, that referral never happened, or was never acted upon by the Committee on Ministry. As the legislative history reports, “Resolution Died With Adjournment.”

2)    The Diocese of New York passed a resolution calling on TEC to come out in support of fully gender inclusive secular civil rights resolution (e.g. ENDA) but it got lost in the shuffle and somehow was never considered at this GC.

2009

1)    D090— encouraged inclusive self-identification on all church forms, creating flexible options for people to identify their gender, names, and preferred pronouns. A question that lingered for us was the problem of amending registries and having certificates reissued (e.g. baptismal, confirmation or ordination) upon request after someone has changed their name (which is why a resolution addressing that has been submitted to GC 2015)

2)    C048 put TEC on record in support of a fully trans inclusive version of the Federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act 

3)    D012 put TEC on record in support of fully trans inclusive nondiscrimination and hate crimes laws at the local, state and federal levels 

4)    D032 (Nondiscrimination protection for lay employees in TEC) – declared that lay employees in TEC are not to be discriminated against on the basis of several demographic designations, including gender identity and expression

5)    C061 Canon Change re: Access to the Ordination process passed the HOD but failed in HOB (HOB actually amended it and sent it back to HOD, which declined to concur) 

2012

1)    D002 added “gender identity and expression” to Canon III.1.2 re: nondiscrimination in access to discernment for the ordination process 

2)    D019 amended Canon I.17.5 (aka “the Rights of the Laity”), clarifying that “No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church” on the basis of “gender identity and expression,” among a number of other demographic categories

3)    D022 called for a church wide response to the epidemic of bullying based on a number of categories, including gender identity and expression  

which brings us to 2015

by the TransEpiscopal Steering Committee 

As we come to the 78th General Convention, TransEpiscopal looks forward to building on the major strides our Church has made over the last decade on behalf of trans people. We also come with a sense of urgency about the gaps that remain between what our Church has done and what remains to be done.

We celebrate tremendous legislative gains between the 2006 and 2012 General Conventions, particularly the addition of “gender identity and expression” to our canons for access to lay ministry and to the discernment process for ordained ministry. Those votes, as many of our blog posts from those Conventions have witnessed, were exhilarating to experience. We also celebrate the stories we hear and tell about congregations that lift up trans people across the church. We are lectors, greeters, Eucharistic ministers. We are in young adult and campus ministries. We serve on vestries and search committees. We serve on diocesan committees, as Deputies to General Convention, on nominating committees, on task forces. Several of us are ordained to the diaconate and the priesthood. Others are in various stages of the ordination process in several different dioceses. Some are in seminary.

Yet at the same time we also know that this progress is not uniformly felt across the Church. Different people in the same Church can have widely different experiences. This should not be the case.

by the Rev'd Dr. Cameron Partridge

This post forms the second in a series about the history of TransEpiscopal’s legislative efforts at the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, as we head to the 78th General Convention at the end of June. 

After our first effort at GC legislative advocacy in 2006 (described here) we realized that we needed to bring a team. We also experienced the power of working in coalition. In 2007 we had become members of the Consultation, “a collaboration of progressive organizations within the Episcopal Church that partner to work for social justice.” Even as we attended GC with our own focus, we also collaborated with the nine other member groups of the Consultation. The key to TransEpiscopal’s work lay not in lifting up any one particular voice or having any one specific spokesperson, but rather in operating collectively and intersectionally. We chose to work this way out of respect for the varied experiences and identities within our own communities and in recognition that we are not alone in being impacted by oppressive social structures. Thus far we have emphasized collegiality, respect, shared resources, variously offered gifts and talents, and collective determination. TransEpiscopal has never had a president, has never had elected positions. Perhaps someday a different structure will make more sense for us. Perhaps not. 

Coming into the 76th General Convention in Anaheim, we were expecting four transgender-themed resolutions amid a much greater number related to liturgical blessings for same sex couples and overturning the (ambiguous) moratorium on openly gay bishops. Some of our targeted resolutions sought to put the Episcopal Church on record in support of secular transgender nondiscrimination legislation, while others sought to amend our own canons in support of trans equality within TEC. Never before had a group of trans Episcopalians organized ourselves to testify at the committee hearings to where these resolutions had been directed. Never before had there been an openly trans Deputy to General Convention, which we gained in Dante Tavolaro of Rhode Island. With growing excitement, we made our way through Convention. To get a flavor for our energy, see this early blog post about the intense opening days of Convention or this one in which I raced up and down the escalators between the House of Bishops and Deputies meetings; this testimony from Dante Tavolaro from the floor of the House of Deputies; this progress report from Michelle Hansen; this recorded testimony from Gari Green or from Vicki Gray.

After all was said and done, the 2009 General Convention passed four trans-themed resolutions: 

by the Rev'd Dr. Cameron Partridge

TransEpiscopal looks forward to being at the 78th triennial General Convention of The Episcopal Church in Salt Lake City June 25-July 3. There, as in the past several years, we aim to collaborate with several groups and individuals to continue being agents of transformation in and through the Episcopal Church, that trans folks – and indeed all people--  might be empowered in and by this Church to be the people God is calling us to become. Already we have come a very long way, even as significant work remains to be done.

As we turn toward Salt Lake City, we wanted to take a moment—a few posts—to recall the history of TransEpiscopal’s legislative advocacy at GC. 

TransEpiscopal’s first such effort was about a year after our founding, in 2006 at the 75th Convention in Columbus, Ohio. This was an especially intense, emotional Convention. The House of Bishops elected The Episcopal Church’s first ever woman Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. The Convention rejected a resolution that intended to place a moratorium on openly gay bishops, three years after Bishop Gene Robinson had been consecrated in New Hampshire (A161 which can be found here). And then, not long after that rejection, the Convention passed a slightly different version of that resolution (B033) which essentially sought to do the same thing with vaguer language (which was later essentially overturned at the GC of 2009). The GC of 2006 was incredibly difficult, especially for LGBT people. 

Amid all this, there wasn’t much awareness of or advocacy for trans people in The Episcopal Church or, really, much specific language to help name our experiences and identities. Take, for instance, the difficulty of even locating a digital record of the one resolution touching on trans people in the life of the church that did, in fact, come before the 2006 General Convention: resolution C030. This resolution, which originated in the Diocese of California, sought to do what the 77th General Convention eventually did in 2012: to add “gender identity and expression” to the nondiscrimination language in Canon III.1.2, on access to the discernment process toward ordained ministry. You can find its legislative record here.  Here is an image of it as well. 
​
Once recognized by the General Convention, and given a number (C030), the resolution got referred to the Committee on Canons. When that committee held a hearing on this and its other resolutions, TransEpiscopal’s founding member Donna Cartwright testified in its support. Donna had driven on her own to General Convention and was a lone voice speaking out in support of this resolution. As the legislative history reports, the committee ultimately “presented its Report #14 on Resolution C030 (Amend Canons: Title III, Canon 1, Section 2) recommending discharge, and re-referral of the resolution to the Committee on Ministry.” This decision was communicated to the House of Bishops. But this sentence really tells the story: “Resolution Died With Adjournment.” Or better, as the abstract of C030 puts it, “The 75th General Convention rejects a resolution to amend Canon III.1.2 regarding access to the discernment process.”

The funny thing about this is that for years several of us have been trying to locate a digital record—or, really, any official record—of this experience that Donna Cartwright had shared with us as it was happening. It felt important, a kind of signpost saying we were there. But none of the key terms – words like “transgender” or “gender identity” or even just “gender” – were generating anything in the digital archives. What ultimately did lead to its location, finally, was an advanced search targeting the year 2006 and typing the word “rejected” under “Action taken.” Among the sixty-six other rejected resolutions, C030 was easy to pick out. In other posts, narrating other encounters at later GCs, we have commented on the importance of naming, of specificity. Without that naming, even as language can still so often fall short, it can be easy to lose traces of our histories, to forget aspects of our journey. 

But, in the person of Donna, we were indeed there, and we knew we needed to return in greater numbers. And so, in 2009, we did….