Category: Bishop Marc Andrus

Halfway There

7/8/2012

Bishop Marc Andrus of the Diocese of California greeted the Reverend Deacon Vicki Gray

Yesterday was an historic day, as theHouse of Bishops voted in favor of all three of the resolutions that take upgender identity and expression.

As yesterday’s blog post left off, we were on the edge ofour seats as the bishops began their afternoon session.

At the conclusion of the morning session, Rev. Stephanie Spellers, a priest from my diocese (though soon to be of the Diocese of LongIsland) and one of the chaplains to the Bishops, had preached on one of the textsassigned for the day: Romans 8:18-27. From the lectern at the front of the room, she read it out deliberately:

I consider that thesufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about tobe revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealingof the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of itsown will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creationitself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedomof the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has beengroaning in labour pains until now; and not only the creation, but weourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while wewait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in hope we were saved. Nowhope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? But if we hopefor what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

She paused for several seconds before continuing:

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

She went on to talk about our groaning as a church. We should not mistake this groaning simply for suffering, though it does indeed signal pain. Yet it signals something much larger: rebirth. We should not lose hope in the midst of our process, our transition, our rebirth. As I tweeted:

#GC77 Stephanie Spellers 'this groaning that you hear' is church being reborn. 'You would notbe sitting here now unless u believed it.'

We would not have been sitting there, would not still beworking here now, unless we believed it.

And, again:

#GC77 Stephanie Spellers: 'we are walking together in the space between.'#TransEpiscopal

Walking together in the space between—she could not have spoken more directly to my experience as a trans person had she been trying. And yet the beauty ofthese words were that they spoke both to my experience and to that of the church in its liminal, in-between location right now. That’s a connection I tried to name in the panel after Integrity’s showing of Out of the Box several days ago—as a trans person I feel like the place in which the church stands poised, forging its way forward into uncharted terrain, is familiar territory. It was so powerful tohear it from my friend Stephanie, and to hear it shared with the bishops I knowshe is so honored to support.

What amazing, nourishing preaching we have heard these last several days. Truly food for thejourney, for all of us.

So, after posting the “Edge of Our Seats” blog entry, I headed to the House of Bishops and took a seat in the gallery. It took about a half hour for D002 tocome up. The text is the same asthe 2009 resolution (C061). I had told my spouse and a friend I would text them as soon as debate began so they could watch comments on the GC#77 Twitter feed. So at 3:35pm when Bishop Mary Gray Reeves of the Ministry Committee presented D002 with a recommendation of passage, I texted a single word: “Now!!”

At 3:36 I then tweeted:

#GC77 D002 Bp Douglas speaking re: transgender res

At 3:38:

#GC77 Gene Robinson speaking in favor of D002 Trans nondiscrimination res

At 3:39:

#GC77 Mark Andrus speaking in favor of D002

At 3:41:

#GC77 Chet Talton of San Joaquin speaking in favor of D002, referencing ordination of a trans woman that he recently did

At 3:43:

#GC77 Bishop Love of Albany wants to know what 'gender expression' means. PB responds, how gender isexpressed in world. Thank you PB!

And again at 3:43:

#GC77 Texas seeks to end debate

And then:

#GC77 it passed!!!D002

I turned around in my seat and locked eyes with my TransEpiscopal colleagues seated behind me. Big smiles and weepy eyes.

Several things struck me right off the bat. First, that those in favor of the resolution were clearly ready to speak. Bishop Ian Douglas referenced the hard educating work he engaged in three years ago on the World Mission committee, to which C061 was sent last time. He explained what gender identity and expression meant, and how his daughter’s generation seemed more familiar and comfortable with transgender people than perhaps people of older generations knew. Bishop Robinson reiterated the strong support for the trans community that I have heard him share in numerous venues recently. Bishop Andrus spoke of how his diocese has ordained a trans woman to the diaconate who is passionate in her work for peace and justice (Vicki Gray, who has posted in this space before and is here as an alternate Deputy from DioCal). Bishop Chet Talton shared how his diocese has recently ordained a highly qualified Deacon (Carolyn Woodall, who is also here at GC, volunteering with IntegrityUSA) and how he sees other transgender people in congregations around the diocese of San Joaquin. When Bishop Love of Albany spoke, I was struck that he asked the same question I recall him asking three years ago, namely what “gender expression” is. There seemed to be some concern that it might be code for sexual activity. After Bishop Love’s question, the Presiding Bishop asked if someone would like to respond. A long pause ensued. Just as I started to worry that no one would respond, the Presiding Bishop herself leaned forward into the mike and explained that gender expression is simply how your gender is expressed in the world. I was so grateful that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was willing to offer that simple, straight forward definition. Right afterward, thebishop of Texas called the question and the vote was taken.

Discussion had taken eight minutes, and D002 passed on avoice vote by a large margin—I would put it at 3/4 or perhaps 2/3 in favor.

The D019 debate then followed directly. Once more, starting at 3:45pm I tweeted:

#GC77 now onto D019.Beckwith speaking of his experience in All Saints Worcester. Bishop Shawspeaking in favor

At 3:46:

#GC77 South Carolina speaking against D019. Referencing 'gender expression', says Wikipedia definedgender expression as all over the map

At 3:49:

#GC77 Rochester, Bishop Singh, speaking of experience of living in liminal space; opportunity to engage liminal embodiment as a church

Again, at 3:49:

#GC77 Gene Robinsonspeaking in support if D019; addressing 'gender expression'

At 3:50:

#GC77 Lawrence of South Carolina speaking against

At 3:52:

#GC77 Bishop Andrus'when we have confusion about a group' that is precisely a reason to protectthem

And then at 3:53:

#GC77 bishops passD019!!

Once again, debate and passage had taken eight minutes.

What immediately struck me was how there was more resistance to this resolution about access of the laity to the life of the church than there had been to the resolution about access to the ordination process. Perhaps that is because there is less opportunity to regulate the laity, as a colleague here pointed out—people in the ordination process have to pass through many steps (including psychological testing). My own sense, however, is that the conversation about D019 was a continuation of the earlier one on D002. Bishop Lawrence of South Carolina, for instance, continued to push on the question about “gender expression.” And I didn’t tweet it, but here again the Presiding Bishop intervened when Bishop Lawrence made a statement about gender expression relating to same sex relationships and sexuality more broadly. “we aren’t talking about relationships at all,” she said. “We’re talking about individuals here.”

My bishop, Tom Shaw, spoke in favor, referencing the way in which we in the Diocese of Massachusetts have been able to reach out to the trans community and advocate in favor of transgender nondiscrimination legislation at the state level. It meant so much to hear him say that, as I’ve been walking with him in this work for a number of years now.

Bishop Beckwith of Newark spoke of his experience as a rector at All Saints in Worcester, in the Diocese of Western Massachusetts, where the transition of a trans man was moving not only for him but for the congregation as a whole. I know the folks to whom he was referring, and I was moved to hear this witness.

Bishop Singh of the Diocese of Rochester made a strong connection between trans embodiment and his experience of liminality—of being perceived as an American in India and an Indian in America—of being bi-cultural. He asked us to consider how the church’s own multiple identities, its threshold identity, could be deepened through our conversation about trans embodiment. This comment spoke so directly to themes close to my heart, my ministry and teaching, that I was essentially sitting there in an excited vibrational state. That this conversation could point toward the deep theological significance of this vote, and this conversation, not simply for trans people but for the church more broadly, left me truly excited and full of hope.

When the vote was taken, once more it passed by a significant majority.

TransEpiscopal members and our allies gathered outside the gallery after the House went into recess and gave each other huge hugs. This was a major step.

As we stood in the hallways, we learned that D022, the resolution calling for a Churchwide Response to Bullying, had passed the House of Bishops. I was surprised that it had come up so quickly, since the hearings had been a day apart. But there it was, another major step forward.

Now we wait for the House of Deputies to take up all three resolutions. It could happen latetoday, but most likely tomorrow (July 9). We are halfway there.

- The Rev'd Dr. Cameron Partridge

Bishop Gene Robinson with TransEpiscopal members after HoB vote

0 Comments

A Trans Perspective on General Convention 2009

7/22/2009

0 Comments

CONCERNING EXPECTATIONS

Last year, before I journeyed to Canterbury for the Lambeth Conference, I wrote of my low expectations for that every-ten-year gathering of the Anglican Communion’s bishops. Upon my return, I reported in sadness how it had lived down to my expectations.

In truth my expectations for the every-three-year General Convention of the Episcopal Church – our 76th – were not much higher. Indeed, given the tension and, among some, anger surrounding BO33, a 2006 resolution promising “restraint” on same-sex unions and the consecration of gay bishops, and the threats since by the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning our membership in the Anglican Communion, I was not the only one who feared an explosion of one sort or another this July in Anaheim.

That explosion never occurred. Instead, both the House of Deputies and House of Bishops passed by overwhelming majorities of two-to-one a positive, forward-looking resolution – DO25 – that allowed BO33 to fade into the mists of a fearful past, boldly stated the inclusive truth of the current consensus within the church, and charted a course for moving forward in continuing fealty to the Anglican Communion.

Against that background, the goals and expectations of the transgender community, of which I am a member, paled in comparison. As we gathered two blocks from Disneyland, we probably were not even on the horizon of most deputies and bishops. The hope of our nascent transgender organization – TransEpiscopal – was simple and modest. Of the four trans-specific resolutions originally submitted, our hope was that one would make it to the floor of the House of Deputies where discussion of it would lead to recognition of our existence and begin an education process around the issues that confront us on a daily basis.

Our little team of eight, embedded in the larger and very supportive Integrity team, succeeded, however, beyond our wildest dreams.

What follows is my attempt to chronicle what happened and to describe my feelings as events unfolded and, now, in their warm afterglow.

PUTTING TOGETHER A TEAM AND A PROGRAM

This adventure started for us in the chill of February. Communicating through the spring by e-mail and conference calls, we tracked the several resolutions being submitted by dioceses and obtained the support of non-trans allies such as Sarah Lawton and Byron Rushing, coordinated our efforts with key LGBT advocacy groups such as Integrity and the Consultation, produced a brochure to hand out at convention and elsewhere, raised money, divided up tasks at convention, and steeled ourselves for the unknown.

And there was a lot that was unknown, for this would be the first time that there would be a visible, vocal transgender presence at a general convention. Would anyone notice? Would anyone care? Would there be a hostile backlash?

There were eight of us and we were, despite our common cause, amazingly diverse. We were five trans women, two trans men, and a gay male ally; three priests, one deacon, and four lay people; and one of our number, Dante Tavalaro, a 19-year-old layman, would be the first trans deputy in the House of Deputies. We hailed, moreover, from every corner of the country – Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin, and, yes, California – and spanned the age spectrum from nineteen to seventy.

We also brought to the task a variety of skills that included expertise with computers and audio/visual equipment, writing, editing (the New York Times no less), and labor organizing. Leadership flowed rather naturally to The Rev. Cameron Partridge, a Massachusetts priest, ably assisted by Donna Cartwright, the editor/organizer from Baltimore and The Rev. Michelle Hansen, a retired priest from Connecticut. All three had been at earlier conventions and educated the rest of us on the ins and outs of the sometimes arcane legislative process.* Cam and I had also shared the experience of Lambeth last year and, with Michelle, the Pacific School of Religion’s Transgender Religious Summit in Berkeley the year before.

And so we left our homes and families, telling our friends: “I’m going to Disneyland!”

HITTING THE GROUND RUNNING

Our arrivals were only slightly staggered with all of us on the ground for the start of the convention. The only one to drive, I arrived about 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7, joining up with the others between an ongoing meeting of the National and International Affairs Committee (which had two of our resolutions) and a regular 10:00 p.m. meeting of the Integrity team. The latter, a Lambeth reunion of sorts, was followed by the first of a dozen or so meetings of our TransEpiscopal team.

At that first meeting, we divided assignments for testimony before the two committees that would be hearing our resolutions. The World Missions Committee would, we learned, consider our resolutions on Canon revisions opening up access to the ordination process to the transgendered (i.e., prohibiting exclusion of the basis of gender identity or expression)…and it would do so at 7:30 the next morning.

Getting back to my Travelodge room around midnight, I scribbled some notes on a yellow legal pad and, falling into a bed that would become familiar, enjoyed the sleep of exhaustion.

Four of us testified the next morning – Wednesday. It was the first act in a whirlwind of sixteen-hour days that soon became a blur – 7:00 a.m. committee meeting, bagel, 9:30 House of Deputies and House of Bishops meetings, Eucharist, a hot dog in the exhibit hall food court, 2:00 p.m. meetings of the two houses, 7:00 p.m. committee meeting, a veggie Panini at the Courtyard, 10:00 p.m. Integrity team meeting, 11:00 p.m. TransEpiscopal meeting to lay out plans for the next day. For Cameron, who also had responsibilities with Integrity and the Consultation, whilst all the while blogging non-stop, the schedule was even more intense.

In the “breaks,” there were opportunities to lobby potential allies, to meet folks at the Integrity booth, to make new friends, and to just soak in the Spirit that permeated the place, the people, the proceedings. Whatever exhaustion had crept in evaporated in the growing exhilaration. Running into House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson between meetings, I could honestly answer “Yes!” – to which I added a hug and a “Thank you” - when she asked “Are you having fun?”

And it soon became apparent that our decision to be in place for the start of convention was a wise one, for it was a very much front-loaded affair with regard to the resolutions we had put forward. Already the second morning, for example, we found ourselves testifying before the National and International Affairs Committee which had on its plate our resolutions on hate crimes and employment non-discrimination. The next mornings and evenings were devoted to following the discussion of the resolutions by the two committees.

Chaired by Bishop John Chane of Washington and including around the table familiar faces like Integrity’s Louie Crew and California’s Sarah Lawton and Bishop Marc Andrus, the National and International Affairs Committee seemed the more simpatico of the two groups. It was an impression reinforced by the nods and smiles that greeted our testimony. Despite a mild hiccup concerning the addition of “disability” to the list of protected classes in the resolutions under consideration and the perception of some that that might imply that LGBT people suffered from some disability, both resolutions passed with overwhelming majorities.

It was also clear that the World Missions Committee was an unlikely one to be asked to consider BO33 and our transgender resolutions. The rationale for the assignments seemed to be that BO33 related to relations with the Anglican Communion and that transgender issues related to BO33. That said, some members of the committee found their task awkward and unfamiliar and an early attempt was made to fob off our resolutions to the Commission on Canons…a move that would have been very understandable. The Chair, Gay Jennings, pointed out, however, that to do so would mean bumping our trans issues to the end of the line of a long list of issues facing Canons and losing them in the rush of last minute business as they were in 2006. “We have been dealt these issues,” she insisted, “and it is up to us to deal with them.”

And deal with them they did…in a movingly thoughtful and spiritual manner. There was, to be sure, considerable misunderstanding about what it means to be transgendered and the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation. One bishop, for example, objected that there was no need for our resolution CO61, since “Sexual orientation is already in the canon.” In response, Ian Douglas gave one of the clearest explanations of the differences between identity and orientation, stressing the relational aspect of the latter. (Thanking him two days later, I added that even I, a transgendered person, had learned from what he said.)

Bottom line, the resolution passed 19-8 among the deputies, with the four bishops voting “No,” and, indeed, was strengthened by adding upfront words to the effect that all are welcome.

As our team drifted out into the hallway to take a celebratory breath and plan next steps, we were joined by the committee’s Michael Barlowe, tears behind his eyes, who spoke of how the Spirit had moved in the room we had just left. He then relayed a request from the chair for a list of authoritative definitions that could be handed out in the House of Deputies and a brief statement she could make in presenting the resolution to the House. We readily agreed to take on the task. In the course of the next hours, our Donna Cartwright obtained from Lisa Motet of the Washington office of the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force a list of definitions on NLGTF letterhead and Cameron Partridge produced the desired statement. With a helpful addition by Michael Barlowe, it was used by Gay Jennings in introducing the resolution.

Entering the third day, we had already exceeded our pre-conference goals – three resolutions would make it to the floor of the House of Deputies and two more, introduced by Dante Tavolaro, were wending their way through the committees. The latter concerned non-discrimination in the hiring of lay employees and making ordination forms less gender particular. Time to take a deep breath, savor the moment, and prepare to track what we had wrought.

THE SPIRIT TAKES WING

Literally! Taking a seat for the first time in the visitors’ gallery of the House of Deputies, I was amazed by the solitary pigeon (aka dove) that hovered over the deputies, continuing to fly about the hall the next several days. And, it became clear, the Spirit was stirring not only above, but within the deputies.

First came the overwhelming 2-1 vote for DO25, the action on which then moved to the House of Bishops. Meanwhile those of us in TransEpiscopal awaited in tense anticipation the introduction in the House Deputies of our trans-specific resolutions, the first of which would be DO12 on hate crimes legislation. We waited and waited…and waited through the afternoon of Monday, July 13. Getting the impression that it would not be brought up till the next morning and hearing that the bishops were in the midst of the historic debate on DO25, Donna and I made our way upstairs to the House of Bishops…arriving just in time to hear the impassioned intervention of Rochester’s Bishop Singh who spoke of how the church had been planted and prospered in India among the untouchables, the outcasts. Soon thereafter the vote began. Of all the votes, the one that rang clearest to my ears was the crisp, unwavering “Aye!” of the Presiding Bishop.

The deed was done, the final vote being 99-33. It was as if a festering boil had been lanced. One could feel the tension, the fear, the pain leave the room, leave the church. The doors opened and the people rushed out, too, making their way – in silence – down the long, steep escalator. Bishop Steven Charleston and I shared a silent, smiling high five as he stepped onto its moving corrugated metal.

Making my own way down to the lobby, I made my way back to the House of Deputies, there to learn that our resolution DO12 on hate crimes and violence had made it to the floor and that Dante, Sarah Lawton, and Michael Barlowe had spoken movingly on behalf of it, as had several others. While the omens were good, the vote had been taken by orders and the results, therefore, would not be made known till the next morning.

Sarah, Michael, and other members of the California delegation were in the midst of an impromptu celebration at the back of the hall. It was a moveable feast that made is way through the lobbies of the Convention Center and Hilton and up a freight elevator to Bishop Marc’s seventh floor hospitality suite. From there I caught a glimpse in the distance of Disneyland and its Matterhorn – as close as I would get – as the celebrating gave way to planning the next day’s and, indeed, the evening’s legislative work.

For my part, I had planned to leave first thing the next morning to begin my journey home by way of a visit with my mother-in-law in Ojai. I could not, however, leave without returning to the House of Deputies the next morning to learn the vote. DO12 passed overwhelmingly! The tears welled up. Getting up to leave, I was exchanging farewell hugs with my transgender sisters and brothers, when Dante and World Missions Chair Gay Jennings rushed from the floor to join us. Squeezing out a feeble “Thank You,” I turned and walked through a now silent lobby and, stopping only long enough to share my joy with three new deacons, traced a well-worn path to the Travelodge…my car…and home.

I was home a day on Friday when I got the telephoned news from Cam that the bishops had passed DO12 following what Episcopal Life called a “lively debate” – a debate that included supportive statements by Cam’s Bishop Tom Shaw and my Bishop Marc Andrus.

At home I also learned that our resolutions on ENDA, on non-discrimination in the hiring of transgedender lay employees, and on making church forms more trans-friendly had also been approved with flying colors. I learned, however, that there had been a long and contentious debate about changing Canon III concerning ordinations (our original CO61). The bishops could not bring themselves to add gender identity or expression to the list of classes that could not be excluded from the ordination process. Instead, by a very split vote, they eliminated any mention of any specific group and bounced back to the World Missions Committee and thence to the House of Deputies a resolution that opened the ordination process to “all baptized Christians.” With TranEpiscopal’s support, that was voted down in the House of Deputies in the hope that three years hence, after further education, we might succeed in getting “gender identity or expression” added explicitly to the canon.

Despite this last minute disappointment, we succeeded in getting four trans-important resolutions passed and the canon change is now on our horizon and the bishops’ radar screens. Above all we incarnated an otherwise abstract issue and educated a broad spectrum of the church about the reality of our lives. I have little doubt that, by continuing a visible presence in the councils of the church and ramping up our education efforts, we will, three years hence in Indianapolis, complete the job of fully including transgendered people in the life of the church.

A SPECIAL EUCHARIST

This has been an important, inspiring start for TransEpiscopal and, as we look forward to Indianapolis and beyond, it is worth noting a little noticed Eucharist held in a small Integrity meeting room at the Courtyard Marriott the evening of Saturday, July 10.

Seeking to mark the departure the next morning of one of our team members Gari Green, we decided to hold a first Transgender Eucharist at General Convention. We were encouraged by our Integrity allies, especially Jim Toy, who recalled the first Integrity Eucharist in 1988 attended in just such a room by a handful of people.

And so we gathered – about twenty of us. Gari, assisted by Cam and Michelle, presided, I served as deacon, and Donna read the first lesson. In lieu of a sermon, everyone in the room reflected on the experience of the previous few days and the importance of what had already transpired to their own spiritual lives and to that of the church. We then formed a circle and passed the bread and cup to each other…one bread, one cup, one family.

Of all the splendid Eucharists that graced convention, including the Integrity Eucharist that had grown to 1,500 people, this was the one I will remember most. It is a memory I have carried home and will carry with me the rest of my life. It is a special memory of a time and place in which our lives became more fully a part of the life of the church and an earnest that that communion will become fuller still.

- the Rev'd Deacon Vicki Gray

*actually, in 2009 only Donna Cartwright had been to a previous General Convention (2006)

0 Comments

"Naming, Naming is Very Important"

7/19/2009

0 Comments

Cameron Partridge, Donna Cartwright, and Michelle Hansen confer with Bishops Barbara Harris and Tom Shaw. General Convention, 2009. Photo by Jon Richardson

An unbelievable four trans-positive resolutions passed at this General Convention. Two of them (D090 and D032) have been mentioned in earlier blog posts. But what happened with D012 and C048 in the House of Bishops? In the rush of Convention’s completion, grabbing a moment to give a detailed report on the unfolding of their passage proved impossible.

Just to be clear about their distinctions, D012 put the Episcopal Church on record in a broad support of non-discrimination and hate-crimes legislation at municipal, state, and federal levels. C048 spoke to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) currently pending in Congress. Both of these resolutions passed, but in different ways.

I had expected D012, which passed resoundingly in the House of Deputies earlier in the week, to come up in the House of Bishops on Thursday, but that didn’t happen. This made me worry it could slip through the cracks, as some legislation can in the massive crunch of this ten-day event. After the bishops’ session ended on Thursday, I approached my bishop, Tom Shaw, to ask if he might be able to help me locate it. He connected me with Bishop Johnson of West Tennessee who represented the official Dispatch of Business committee for the House of Bishops (the House of Deputies has a parallel person). Bishop Johnson took me to the office of the Secretariat of the House of Bishops, where I ran into two fellow Bryn Mawr graduates, one of whom was working for the office. We took a picture of ourselves in our bemusement. With the help of this office and the parallel office of House of Deputies and Bishop, we found the crack into which the resolution had fallen. And so, after some extra running around, D012 came up during the morning session of the House of Bishops on the last day of the Convention.

As it so happened, I was out of the room when the debate began, and I now know from viewing the notes of my fellow Integrity Legislative Team tracker, that my own bishop Tom Shaw spoke first in support. I so wish I could have heard that. As I walked in, Bishop Love of the Diocese of Albany was speaking against the resolution. He had no issue with the nondiscrimination language, but wanted to remove the language of “hate crimes.” His concern was that preaching against particular “lifestyles” on moral grounds could be construed as a hate crime. He did not, however, move an amendment.

Bishop Marc Andrus spoke strongly in favor of the resolution, as he had with C061. He began by emphasizing how this resolution differed from C061. This was about basic civil rights for transgender people—nondiscrimination in the workplace, access to education and public accommodation, extra resources to law enforcement when investigating a hate crime. He spoke of the vulnerability of transgender people to job loss and violence. He was impassioned and eloquent. Bishop Andrus has been such an amazing ally throughout this Convention.

Bishop Barbara Harris, retired suffragan bishop of Massachusetts and one of my personal heroes, then spoke in favor of the resolution. She underscored the vulnerability of trans people to violence and in particular the high death rate around the globe.

Bishop Catherine Roskam of New York then spoke in favor of the resolution, including the hate crimes language, arguing that it was important for this resolution to have that specific language because of the profound vulnerability of trans people. She went on to say she knew from personal experience that this was not only an issue in the United States but also around the Anglican Communion. She had visited a congregation in India that has a partner relationship with a congregation in her diocese. This Indian congregation has a ministry to transgender people there, and she knows from visiting that they too are a vulnerable population. I have heard of this congregation and its relationship and was so glad to hear the bishop bring it to the House’s attention.

Bishop Catherine Waynick of Indianapolis then rose to speak in support of D012. She began by saying that she had felt some tension within herself about the way their previous discussion of C061 had used the term “all.” "All" does not means "all" to everyone. There was a time, she said, when we thought the word "mankind" meant everyone. Except we all knew when it didn’t. We need to be specific, she said.

Bishop Otis Charles, retired bishop of Utah, then spoke in favor of the resolution. He spoke as an openly gay man, having come out in recent years, after his retirement. From that perspective he underscored both the vulnerability and invisibility of trans people. He called on people to ask themselves what and whom they fail to see. He told of a time when he was dean of the Episcopal Divinity School, when a student had requested not to sing a particular hymn in the chapel. He had no idea what could be wrong with the hymn, only to realize as they went ahead and sang it that it was riddled with masculine pronouns. He had not previously been able to see to what made student object. “I know in myself I have been blind, and naming, naming is very important,” he concluded.

Bishop Charles turned out to be the last speaker. I have no doubt that Bishop Gene Robinson also would have spoken in support, as he did with C061, but he was in bed with a terrible fever for two days, and could not be present.

At this point, someone called the question, and a vote was held. It was nearly unanimous — I could only hear one “no.”

In my notes, I wrote “THANK GOD!!!”

After the session ended, Donna and I tried to personally thank everyone who had spoken in favor of the resolution, as well as others who had helped us in various ways along the road. I thanked Bishop Shaw and Bishop Barbara Harris, as well as my suffragan bishops, Gayle Harris and Bud Cederholm, for their support. Donna thanked bishops she has known from her time in the Diocese of Newark. We looked for Bishop Andrus, who was so very supportive throughout the Convention, but we missed him. We thanked Bishops Charles, Roskam and Waynick, as well as Bishop Chane of Washington D.C. who co-chaired the committee from which this resolution emerged. I was particularly moved when he spontaneously gave us a hug.

After descending the escalators once more, Donna handed me notes for the beginnings of a press release, which I completed later in the day. We then gave each other a big hug before Donna headed off to the airport. Donna is the one who got TransEpiscopal going after beginning to connect with other transgender Episcopalians in 2004, including some who had been involved in previous General Conventions, and this Convention marks a huge milestone in these efforts.

I was even happier to be able to leave her a voicemail later in the afternoon, letting her know that C048, the ENDA resolution, passed the House of Bishops without any further discussion. That marked the fourth and final transgender related resolution to pass at the 76th General Convention.

There was one last stressful moment before it was all over for this triennium, however—a coda of sorts. Resolution C061, as you may recall, had passed by a respectable margin in the House of Deputies, only to be transformed in the House of Bishops a day later. Not only had the language of “gender identity and expression” been taken out of the proposed addition to the nondiscrimination canon, but all the categories already listed in the canon were now threatened if the House of Deputies concurred. Our fear was that there might be some confusion in the House of Deputies about what they should do. We tried to get the word out that our preference was for them not to concur, so that the resolution would essentially die and we could try to add the trans-inclusive language again in three years.

Because the Deputies worked so efficiently, the resolution did indeed come back up in the late afternoon, just before the Convention drew to a close. I didn’t get down the escalator in time to hear the debate but learned that Dante Tavolaro had spoken and clarified our position about the resolution. I also understand that, among other speakers, at least one spoke in favor of concurrence. But the Deputies thankfully did not vote that way.

And that marked the end of our General Convention saga.

- The Rev'd Dr. Cameron Partridge

(with thanks to Deniray Mueller of Integrity's Legislative team for allowing me to check my notes against hers, and to Jon Richardson, also of the legislative team, for the photo of TE folks with Bishops Shaw and Harris)

0 Comments

"This Is Important"

7/16/2009

0 Comments

Yesterday, for the first time in its history, the House of Bishops publicly took up the matter of transgender people in ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church. Resolution C061, which passed the House of Deputies on Monday, July 13th by a wide margin, seeks to change Title III.1.2 which currently forbids discrimination on the basis of the following categories: “race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons.” The resolution would add “gender identity or expression” to that list. The outcome of this debate reflected a diversity of opinion on and experience with transgender people in the House of Bishops. Several bishops spoke in support of the resolution, a couple spoke strongly against it, and a number referred to feeling inadequately educated on the topic.

The resolution, as they initially received it was a follows:

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That Title III, Canon 1, Sec. 2 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church is hereby amended to read as follows: all baptized persons shall have full access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained in this church, except as otherwise provided by these canons. No person shall be denied access or have their discernment process terminated because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.

Marc Andrus of the Diocese of California and Gene Robinson of New Hampshire spoke both passionately and authentically about their experience of transgender people in ministry. Bishop Andrus emphasized that in his diocese, where Vicki Gray serves as a vocational deacon, they ordain individuals, not particular classes of people. If someone discerns a call to ministry, the issue for a Commission on Ministry and bishops to attend to is the vocation and the person’s ability to live into it, not their particular gender identity or expression. I entered the room during the tail end of Gene Robinson’s remarks, and so missed the bulk of them, but I heard him speaking strongly in support.

Of those who spoke against, Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi stood out for remarking that adding this language would “cross a line” and that we don’t need it because people are ordaining trans people already without it; to make that reality canonically explicit would be to “wave a red flag” about it.

For the most part, among those who spoke against the resolution, what I heard was not so much outright negativity as a sense of discomfort, of feeling overwhelmed and inadequately informed. A couple bishops argued that Commissions on Ministry need to have access to resources in order to be prepared to receive applications to the ordination process from trans people, and that to change the canon now, before they had such resources, would not be fair.

Bishop Dorsey Henderson of the diocese of Upper South Carolina objected to the longstanding language of the canon “no person shall be denied access”. He expressed a wish that the word “all” might replace “no.”

Bishop Samuel Howard of the Diocese of Florida expressed confusion and concern about the term “gender expression,” wondering if it might be a trojan horse for sexual activity outside of marriage. This was not the first time someone took issue with this term; someone on the floor of the House of Deputies also asked about it, and it also came up in the Committee on World Mission.

Bishop Dabney Smith of Southwest Florida then objected to a line that the Committee on World Mission had actually added to the original version of the resolution. The nondiscrimination canon already states that “no person shall be denied access,” but this resolution added the phrase “or have their ordination process terminated.” Had it remained, this line might have been a remarkable achievement in its own right. It would have addressed scenarios in which people come out as LGB or T, or begin a relationship, after entering their ordination process; in a some more conservative dioceses, people’s processes have indeed been terminated in response to just such situations. But the bishops were not in favor of that phrase. Stated reasons ranged from exactly the one just mentioned to concerns about opening themselves to litigation if, for instance, someone attributed the reason for their termination to a particular bias while the bishop or Commission on Ministry might have actually had other reasons.

The bishops then unanimously voted to remove that phrase.

Bishop Catherine Roskam of New York then returned to Bishop Henderson’s critique of the “no person” language. “What is it about ‘all’ that we don’t understand?” she asked. “There’s no adequate list. There will always be someone’s name we’ve left off.” With that, she made an amendment to remove all of lines five and six of the resolution. That motion spoke not simply to the language of “gender identity or expression,” but also to the entire list already enshrined: race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age. The move on Bishop Roskam’s part appeared designed to find a way out of an impasse, a way not to reject the resolution outright.

In the wake of this move, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina made a motion to refer the resolution to the Standing Commission on Ministry Development, so that a study could be done on ordaining transgender people. Notable in his motion was the sentiment, “This is important. It is important. And it’s of such importance that we want to do this properly, we want to do this in the right way. And in order to do so we need to come back with a good, thoughtful report.”

Comments and questions that followed either supported this referral or asked whether it would cause the original resolution to die. A vote was then taken on Bishop Curry’s motion, and was very narrowly defeated: 60 in favor, 66 against.

They then immediately turned to Bishop Roskam’s amendment, passing it, and the resolution as amended:

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That Title III, Canon 1, Sec. 2 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church is hereby amended to read as follows: "all baptized persons shall have full access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained in this church, except as otherwise provided by these canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established."

Because they amended the resolution, it gets sent back to the House of Deputies.

So, where does this resolution leave us? While I believe the amendment to remove the specific demographic language was well intentioned, and while I certainly concur with the notion that “all” should truly mean all, this resolution as amended does not do what it was designed to do.  The “all” version appears to have passed specifically because it did not mention “gender identity or expression.” Further, it eradicates the particularity of groups that worked for years to get that language into the canon to begin with. As much as I wanted the universality of “all” to do the job, in the context of this debate as it unfolded, the term was more evasive than inclusive. And so my hope is that the House of Deputies will not concur with it, that we might put our shoulders to this particular wheel again at the 77th General Convention.

But I have much higher hopes than that. The progress we have made at this Convention-- with more to come before it's over-- is absolutely huge. The fact that the House of Deputies passed C061 by a very respectable margin is tremendous. That the House of Bishops got to discuss this resolution was huge. They made it clear they want to learn more, which is also to me a major victory. I will admit, however, that it was also difficult, indeed painful, to hear the debate as it unfolded. This is my life, my ordination process, my ministry they were talking about. And yet at the same time, in my mind, I keep coming back to Bishop Curry saying “This is important. This is important.” I agree-- it is important, and because of that, we need to do more. We have taken some of the first steps in making the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion aware that trans people are here, in our pews, on our vestries, in our pulpits; that we bring unique insights, gifts of uncommon experience and perception, and often deeply prayerful experiences of transformation; that we love this church.

And while I’ll end this post here, as Michelle and Donna have noted, more trans related activity happened yesterday than just this vote—in the afternoon the House of Deputies took up D012, the transgender civil rights resolution, and passed it in a landslide after several truly beautiful speakers gave testimony. I want to give that story a blog post in its own right, so stay tuned.

- The Rev'd Dr. Cameron Partridge

0 Comments

Linked Witness

7/15/2009

0 Comments

I spent this afternoon in the House of Deputies, along with Donna Cartwright and Rev. Karen McQueen of the Diocese of LA, drinking coffee and eating chocolate, trying to stay awake, waiting for D012 to come up. This is the resolution sponsored by Byron Rushing of MA, Sarah Lawton of CA and Dante Tavolaro of RI which would put the Episcopal Church on record in supports transgender civil rights.

At the very same time, three thousand miles away, people gathered at a hearing of the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee regarding a transgender nondiscrimination bill ("An Act Relative to Gender Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes" HB 1728 & SB 1687. The Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition's photo gallery of the hearing can be found here). It may surprise you to note that Massachusetts is not one of the thirteen states + D.C. to have discrimination protections for trans people. I testified at the hearing for another version of this bill last year and would have again this year were I not here at GC. I am proud to be able to report that the Very Rev. Jep Streit, Dean of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, testified in favor of this legislation today. To read a comprehensive article about the hearing in Bay Windows, the Boston Area LGBT weekly, click here. Video from the press conference that preceded the Massachusetts hearing is at the bottom of this post.

After posting here and on facebook, I tweeted about the simultaneity of our work here at GC and in MA: "Love to all at MA trans legislative hearing right now! Take heart: HoD just passed C061 which now goes to bishops." Later, I picked up tweets from at least two people saying they had mentioned GC's trans resolutions during their testimony in MA. One suggested that this witness is sign to the rest of the country, and beyond, that trans issues are neither "obscure" nor "bizarre".

Now, I know a bunch of folks here are showing some signs of "ubuntu fatigue" (for those who don't know, it's a word that means "I in you and you in me" and is the theme of this Convention), but if this interlinked witness isn't an example of "ubuntu", I don't know what is.

In between that discovery, while I still sat in the House of Deputies, I got a text from Michelle Hansen, who was sitting in on the House of Bishops that two trans-positive resolutions had passed the House of Bishops. To me, this news came out of nowhere-- I knew they had been approved by their committee, as reported in an earlier post, but I did not realize they were headed first to the House of Bishops.

The first of these resolutions reads:

"Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church recommends and encourages all bodies of The Episcopal Church to utilize all available resources to revise and adapt forms to be fully inclusive of all people: by including lines not only for one's legal name, but also for one's preferred name as well as one's gender identity and pronoun preference."

EXPLANATION

For the second General Convention in a row, the Episcopal Church is considering legislation pertaining to transgender people. Resolutions include changing Canon III.1.2 and III. 1. 3 to include "gender identity and expression"; supporting transgender civil rights; and supporting a fully inclusive ENDA (Employment Non-discrimination Act). This resolution extends into the life of the Church the respect and recognition of transgender people conveyed by these other resolutions, by calling for a small but significant change in forms. This resolution would add four lines to Church forms: legal name, preferred name, gender identity and pronoun preference.

The addition of preferred name to legal name would benefit many people. A person's legal name could be William, but he might go by a middle name. For transgender persons, the "preferred name" line can facilitate respectful treatment even if they do not have the financial means to legally change a birth name to one that reflects gender identity.

The choice to write out one's gender identity (one's inner sense of oneself as a man, a woman, or another gender category), rather than the restriction of the categories "male" or "female" from a multiple choice dropdown menu, would significantly facilitate the ability of transgender people to access and take their place within the life of the Church.

Similarly, the ability to choose the pronouns by which one is referenced deeply impacts transgender people's experience on a very concrete level, moment by moment. The imposition of pronouns with which one does not identify can be experienced as profoundly dehumanizing.

Adding these five lines to church forms would represent a small but significant step forward as transgender people increasingly take their place in the life of the Church. In a highly concrete way, these changes would reflect our conviction, as stated in our Baptismal Covenant, that we respect the dignity of every human being. Forms are, in a real sense, doorways that can significantly frame our experience of the Church. For transgender people-and indeed, for all-they should stand open, inviting and valuing full participation."

The second of these resolutions, submitted by Dr. Louie Crew, is D032. It reads:

"Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 76th General Convention commit The Episcopal Church itself not to discriminate in employment of lay employees based on race, color, sex, national origin, age, familial status, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity, or gender expression."

EXPLANATION

"The Church is generally exempt from federal employment discrimination laws, and those of most states and localities, but except for discrimination based on religion which may be appropriate for some positions, The Episcopal Church supports the principles of non-discrimination. It should take credit for that position public. Many but not all of the above categories are set forth in resolutions of previous General Conventions but this would put them all in one convenient location."

Michelle heard what little discussion there was on these resolutions, and may want to comment more. The only reservation, again raised by Bishop Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island, was about the term "gender expression." Bishop Marc Andrus had distributed copies of the NGLTF definitions to the House of Bishops which defined that term, but Bishop Wolf did not appear satisfied and voted against it. She had raised a similar question in the hearing at which I testified last week.

The bottom line, however, is that the vast majority of the bishops passed the resolution, and quickly at that. Both D090 and D032 now head to the House of Deputies where, if they pass, they become an official position of the Episcopal Church.

So now, as I look toward tomorrow (Wed), the House of Bishops could get C061 (the ministry canon change to include "gender identity and expression"). The House of Deputies will undoubtedly take up D012 (trans civil rights), first thing in the morning, and I don't know when they will get D090 and D032, not to mention C048 through which the Episcopal Church would explicitly support an inclusive ENDA (more on that later).

I look forward to seeing what happens tomorrow, and pray that the Spirit of Truth and courage will keep on blowing here, and across this country.

- The Rev'd Dr. Cameron Partridge

0 Comments

Surprises and Joys

7/15/2009

0 Comments

Cameron has posted well on the day's events at General Convention. I will only add a few observations from my perspective. I was in the House of Bishops waiting for C061 to come up. C061 which deals with inclusiveness in the ordination process had passed in the House of Deputies. I was sitting with a long-time friend who is the wife of one of the Bishops (they had both been parishioners of mine many years ago and I consider them good friends.) The Bishops were struggling with the issue of blessings of same sex unions (C056) because six states, including my own Connecticut allow same sex Civil Marriages. Cameron texted me from Deputies that D025 (see Cameron's explanation in previous posts) had passed in the Deputies. My friend and I both were extremely pleased(the Bishops had passed this measure yesterday.)

The Bishops decided to postpone the discussion on Marriage Blessings to Thursday Afternoon, which will be later today, and moved on with business. I was totally surprised to hear D090 on gender issues on forms presented. It passed with little dissent without discussion. D032 Gender equality for Lay employees was then presented by the same committee. Bishop Wolf of Rhode Island expressed confusion about the term Gender Expression. Bishop Andrus of California tried to explain as did the Bishop who presented the measure. The explanations were a bit weak. The attempt was apparently enough because there was no more debate and the measure passed! Both measures passed easily. I was totally surprised and pleased. What a day! Look to Cameron's post for the wording of the measures and for details.

As a personal note, I am getting tired. I get up a bit later each morning and go to bed a little earlier each night. Tylenol and Advil are my friends. Sitting in Convention Hall chairs is getting tougher. The morning shower gets a little longer and hotter each day. For me it is two more days and then I fly home. It has been a remarkable time. I have noticed that all of the pictures of me that have been posted are of the back of my head. I am not sure why that is (possibly it's the best view of me), but I thought I would post one of my front for a change.

God's Peace,

- Michelle+

0 Comments

Halfway There

A Trans Perspective on General Convention 2009

"Naming, Naming is Very Important"

"This Is Important"

Linked Witness

Surprises and Joys

Archives

Categories