Lent 2023
 
A Letter from TransEpiscopal to the Bishops and Standing Committees of the Episcopal Church:
 
Peace and blessings to you in the name of Christ. 
 
We, members of TransEpiscopal, standing alongside the LGBTQ+ Caucus and the Deputies of Color, write to you, the Bishops and Standing Committees of our Church, to urge you to decline to consent to the election of the Rev. Charlie Holt as bishop coadjutor of the Diocese of Florida. We ask you to take seriously the report of a “pattern and practice of LGBTQ clergy…not being treated equally with similarly situated clergy” by the Court of Review concerning the November 2022 bishop election in Florida, which found a serious pattern of violation of our Church’s non-discrimination canon. That canon states:
 
“No person shall be denied access to the discernment process or to any process for the employment, licensing, calling, or deployment for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, immigration status, national origin, sex, marital or family status (including pregnancy and child care plans), sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to employment, licensing, ordination, call, deployment, or election is hereby established.” (Canon 3.1.2; see also Canon III.9.7a and Canon III.9.3a). 
 
The Court of Review named the existence of a long-term, systematic pattern of mistreatment and exclusion of LGBTQIA+ clergy in the diocese resulting in the hindrance of their capacity to vote in the election of a bishop coadjutor. The testimonies included in the report are palpably heartbreaking. These serious findings, which have implications beyond even the specific election process irregularities named in the report, were investigated and reported upon by an elected official body of The Episcopal Church, and reveal the election itself to be fundamentally unfair. We urge you to decline to consent to this election to bring pastoral care and healing to this diocese and begin to reform diocesan systems of ordination access and deployment. 
 
We also urge you not to default to an easy framing of this conversation as a referendum on the idea of “Communion Across Difference,” of the Episcopal Church as a “via media,” or “big tent,” and as a statement on whether theological conservatives truly belong in The Episcopal Church. At best such framing is a distraction, a red-herring argument. At worst it deceives from and covers over the structural elephant in the room: the systematic disenfranchisement of LGBTQIA+ people through long-standing pattern and practice, as the Court of Review report and subsequent news reports have underscored. 
 
Communion across difference does not mean allowing cultures of discrimination to exist and it cannot forestall our charge to be consistent with our nondiscrimination canons. Communion across difference means there is room for theological disagreement, but not for bullying, not for controlling a system to keep centering your position, not for obfuscating that control, and not for suppressing votes. A “big tent” Church cannot condone a false equivalency between being discriminated against because of race or ethnicity, national origin, immigration status, sex, marital or family status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability or age – all aspects of who someone is – and being disagreed with because of a theological position (as the Rev. Canon Susan Russell has emphasized for years). 
 
In that sense, the Diocese of Florida is not comparable to the Diocese of New Hampshire in 2003. The issue is not whether a diocese can elect the bishop who best fits their charism; we know of several recent bishops elected who hold conservative theological views, who were easily granted consent; but whether the process of that election fundamentally extends a pattern and practice of discrimination that we have agreed, in our polity, not to uphold. We also note that the bishop-elect, the Rev. Charlie Holt, has been working closely within that same discriminatory diocesan system since last summer. 
 
We believe more is at stake in this dispute than the outcome of one diocesan episcopal election. While the specifics of this situation are distinct to the Diocese of Florida, the issues and power dynamics at play here matter for and reverberate across the whole Church. We agree with the Diocese of Florida’s standing committee president, the Rev. Joe Gibbes, who observed in a recent opinion essay in The Living Church that “if standing committees had to show an unblemished report card for the sitting bishop to be permitted to elect a successor, no diocese would ever be able to elect!” We in TransEpiscopal can tell many stories of discrimination in employment and deployment across the Church effecting trans and non-binary clergy in recent years – although we are glad to be able to highlight growing acceptance as well, and we welcome with joy the recent reaffirmation of support for trans people from the House of Bishops. We know as well as anyone in the Church that we are all still on a journey in this Church to overcome discrimination across many dimensions. The difference in this case is that the Court of Review has made a serious finding of a pattern and practice of such discrimination. As bishops and standing committees, you have a responsibility to take their report into consideration in this case. Otherwise, we as a Church will be saying that this canon does not matter, in the breach. 
 
Our non-discrimination canons, adopted by General Convention, do point to an expansive, non-complementarian theology of the human, including a vision of marriage open to people beyond just heterosexual couples. We know not everyone accepts this theology fully, and we hope and pledge to stay in dialogue and relationship with those with whom we disagree. We, as trans and non-binary members of the Episcopal Church, and their families, fully believe that communion across difference is possible; we choose to take the risky path to see the face of Christ in one another and to love radically in the way Jesus calls us to. But we should also expect as a Church, that our systems will support us, full stop.
 
If your theology is different and if it accords with what the Church taught prior to the establishment of these non-discrimination canons — we reject the use of the term “traditional” to describe such a position, as if our position is somehow “untraditional”— you are still a beloved child of God and you still have a place at the table. We believe that in our journey together with God and each other, relationship is primary. We are called to walk the Way of Love together, for we know that when two or more are gathered in God’s holy name, God will be there. We are called to listen to each other in openness and walk alongside each other to the best of our abilities.
 
We are not called, however, to be tolerant of disrespect, bullying, intimidation, or being treated like doormats. Trans and non-binary people, the LGBTQIA+ community as a whole, and all historically marginalized communities, are done simply being tolerated and we are done tolerating theologies of the human that dehumanize us. The Church doesn’t get to dictate the terms of our presence nor to marginalize us. That’s what the canons say. Those are the terms in which we walk together. We are willing to do the work to walk as One. 
 
We understand that the current bishop of Florida, the Rt. Rev. John Howard was elected before some of this canon language was adopted and that the Church’s positions on these issues have shifted during the past 20 years. That is all the more reason, in this time of transition, to examine how diocesan systems match the canonical expectations of the wider Church. This should be true for any diocese in transition. 
 
Making these canons real is important, and it matters to us, deeply and personally. TransEpiscopal has been an integral part of the struggle to expand our non-discrimination canons. In 2009, we successfully advocated with a legislative committee and the House of Deputies that we should add language for gender identity and expression to Canon 3.1.2. However, when the House of Bishops voted to amend our resolution to wipe out all the specific language in the canon to instead say something like “all means all” but without specificity, we chose to ask the House of Deputies to reject their amendment and kill the resolution altogether for three years, because we believe so strongly that the particularity of that canonical language matters. We brought the resolution back in 2012 and we celebrated when it passed that General Convention in Indianapolis. 
 
We ask you to uphold these canons of our Church. The Rev. Joe Gibbes says in the aforementioned opinion piece in The Living Church that “the question of whether there has been a pattern of discrimination against LGBTQ people in the Diocese of Florida cannot be ignored, but neither is it properly addressed through a review of our election process.” We in TransEpiscopal profoundly disagree with this assertion. It is precisely in this moment of transition and high stakes for the whole Church that the canons must be upheld. Otherwise, they are just words.
 
As a Church, we have repeatedly affirmed that LGBTQIA+ people are beloved children of God, made in the Imago Dei, and that we have a place in God’s vision of the world. Consenting to an election conducted under processes and systems which denied this truth would be a step away from the Beloved Community we are called to be and to build. That is not the Beloved Community to which our Church has committed itself—as written into our canons, and hopefully, as well, practiced in our lives, day by day. 
 
We pray for your discernment and work.
 
In Christ,
 
Members of the TransEpiscopal Steering Committee:

The Rev. A.J. Buckley
Oregon

Donna Cartwright
Maryland
 
The Rev. M. E. Eccles
Chicago
 
The Rev. Gwen Fry
Maine
 
The Rev. Dr. Vicki Gray
California
 
The Rev. G. Green
Milwaukee
 
The Rev. Michelle Hansen
Connecticut

The Rev. Lauren Kay
Maine
 
The Rev. Rowan Larson
Massachusetts
 
Sarah Lawton
California
 
The Rev. Dr. Cameron Partridge
California

The Rev. Carla Robinson
Olympia
 
The Rev. Iain Stanford
California
 
Tieran Sweeny-Bender
Olympia
 
The Rev. Kit Wang
Maine

​TransEpiscopal thanks the House of Deputies for its vote today in support of A063 “Create a Director of LGBTIQ and Women’s Ministries.” We very much appreciate the powerful testimony from the deputies today, as well as the work of many over these last months to support this resolution. Thank you! 
 
As the resolution moves to the House of Bishops we wanted to reiterate why this resolution is urgently needed. As Deputy Tieran Sweeney Bender of the Diocese of Olympia shared so eloquently, The Episcopal Church has “done important work in support of women and LGBTQ people at past conventions,” including many resolutions TransEpiscopal has supported, listed here. “Yet these important past resolutions can only go so far. In the face of systematic attacks on the right to bodily autonomy and attacks on queer and trans people, especially trans kids and youth, we must add to the important statements we have made and take action.” 
 
Action is needed now that can represent the best of The Episcopal Church’s commitment to stand in solidarity with women and LGBTQ people. As Deputy Cynthia Black of the Diocese of Newark said in her testimony, which Susan Russell has quoted in a blog post: “Here’s the deal with this resolution. It may not be the ultimate in perfection. But the time is NOW. It has been now for a long time, but it is especially time NOW as women’s and LGBTQ rights are at risk.” 
 
TransEpiscopal is an all-volunteer organization, with no paid staff and a bare bones budget. We are asked on a weekly basis to assist individuals, congregations, dioceses in everything from training to pastoral care. Outside the church we advocate against the many laws limiting civil rights and bodily autonomy. While all that we do is a labor of love and solidarity, we cannot keep up with the ever-growing need. We need staff support from our church. Not to do everything, but a point person who can help us gather in a network of people to develop resources that are faith-rooted, multilingual, and culturally appropriate for our diverse
communities. We need help connecting with people across various networks and organizations within the church so that we can address issues of gender equity, civil rights, and health care access in a coherent and systemic manner. This position can stand alongside various volunteer networks—not just ours – supplementing and assisting their goals, not supplanting them.
 
This position may not do everything that everyone would want, nor is it a finished job description – indeed, it is not the work of General Convention to perfect job descriptions. A063 represents a first step in supporting the church in the work it is called to do. It is funded in the proposed budget. The church has long needed such a position, and urgently needs one in this moment.
 
In the words of 2 Corinthians: now is the acceptable time (6:2).
 
We urge the House of Bishops to concur on A063 “Create a Director of LGBTIQ and Women’s Ministries.” 

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   

​Last night the House of Bishops released a statement of where they are as a body. In part the statement responds to the Communiqué issued by Anglican Communion Primates in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania last February. The media and the Anglican Blososphere are weighing in on it left and right. What I would add for now are two observations and one critical comment:

1) Range of Reactions:

It’s striking to observe the range of reactions among progressives (e.g. see comments to posting on Fr. Jake’s blog). Some people are incensed, while others think this was a decent outcome that clarifies what the next steps need to be. Integrity USA, the organization of LGBT Episcopalians, has issued a quite positive statement, saying that the bishops stood firm, resisting the demands of the Anglican Primates. I have also observed question marks about Integrity’s statement from some progressive corners, a sense of ‘are we reading the same document?’ There can be no doubt that the primary work of the next General Convention, which will be held in Anaheim, California in the summer of 2009, is to repeal the resolution known as B033 (which stated “that this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion”). Yesterday's bishops statement points to the language from that resolution as ‘where the church is’ right now. It also stated that the immortally ridiculous phrase, “those whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church”, includes gay and lesbian people.

2) Media Constructions

I’ve been part of several conversations recently about what angles on this story the mainstream media may be missing. The aspect about which I hear most is the notion that this split within the Episcopal Church is not happening on nearly as big a scale as the media seems to think it is. This morning, Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe remarked, “The Episcopal Church has repeatedly sought to portray the conservatives who would leave as a tiny minority.” He doesn’t come right out and say he doesn’t buy it, but he does make it clear he detects spin. I don’t think he’s mistaken, but I also agree that the numbers aren’t nearly as high as conservative groups spin them to appear. Nevertheless, the global dimension of our conflict may ultimately make the congregational numbers game irrelevant; the story itself is impacting infinitely more people than we can count, in and out of the Anglican Communion, for good and/or ill. We can’t just count those who are leaving the denomination. There’s a fascinating communications war going on in all of this. If, as I believe, the media does not simply report on but also constructs its subjects/objects, then the entity known as the ‘Anglican Communion’ is now inflected by the increasingly global concept of homosexuality, and—fascinatingly, to me-- vice versa. How often now, when reading about homosexuality in Global South contexts, do we find some reference to the Anglican Communion? It’s incredible.

3) Pastoral Pathology

The bishops made a distinction between “authorizing” same sex blessings and “making allowance” for them for pastoral reasons. Translation: no diocese has written or officially authorized any liturgies for the blessing of same sex unions, but in many places services have long been allowed to take place. A resolution from the 2003 General Convention even acknowledged that reality. Yesterday’s statement says that most bishops are not making such “allowances”. But where they are doing so, they do it for reasons of “pastoral care.” By the end of their statement the bishops affirm the need to respect the dignity of LGBT people, speaking in terms of our civil rights.  

What we’re seeing here is an affirmation that the church is willing to fight for full inclusion outside the church, but that within the church that same fight can only take place under the rubric of “pastoral care.” Indeed, Bishop Caroline Tanner Irish of the Diocese of Utah commented, “’I think putting [same-gender blessings] in the context of 'pastoral care' is the critical word,’ she said. She praised the House of Bishops for what she called the hard work and compromise offered by all the members.” It’s a sad day when the very term “pastoral” takes on a patronizing and pathologizing hue, but that’s exactly what’s happened. The pastoral gets to respond compassionately to disorder. As long as LGBTI people remain officially relegated to the ‘pastoral’, we remain contained, and a worship service that should be a sacramental vehicle of transformation ends up implicitly framed (by bishops, not necessarily by the priests who conduct them) as a kind of pat-pat, there-there, I’m-praying-for-you-in-all-of-your-challenges kind of way. To add insult to injury, there are those who are speaking of the need to make limits to the pastoral. Great. Well, I’m not interested in waging this fight on pastoral grounds. I’m fighting for the full flourishing of human beings, called by God to ever-increasing authenticity, ever more true and clear reflection of the likeness of that image in which we were created.

We’ve got our work cut out for us in the 2009 General Convention. And when I’m not utterly frustrated, I’ll be curious to see how the communications construction process evolves along the way.
​
- The Rev'd Cameron Partridge

This has been a day of tremendous tension in the Anglican Communion. Our House of Bishops are finishing up a six day meeting in New Orleans at the beginning of which they received a visit from Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The bishops and the Episcopal Church in general are under enormous international pressure to bow to demands that we unambiguously stop blessing same sex unions and lifting up openly gay people as bishops. The media has been reporting on our denomination to an unprecedented degree because of the intense fear of schism. Every Episcopalian I talk to is exasperated by the situation. I too get irritated, particularly regarding coverage of our governance as a denomination. Admittedly, it’s a confusing system with elements of hierarchy and democracy. The most important factor in the present circumstances is that in the Episcopal church bishops don’t actually have authority to declare a national church policy on their own. We include all orders of ministry—bishops, priests, deacons, and baptized laity-- in that sort of decision, and we meet in a kind of congress every three years to do so. In between such meetings the highest level of authority in the Episcopal Church is actually the Executive Council which, again, is composed of all orders, not just bishops. In other parts of the Anglican Communion, governance structure can bestow more authority on bishops than we do. What’s frustrating is when other parts of the Communion expect our bishops to operate as theirs do. I imagine those kinds of expectations can be seductive to our bishops, especially those who instinctively a) want to rein in a chaotic situation and b) keep everyone happy. A situation like this requires strong spines and level heads. Thankfully, this past Spring, our bishops made a clear statement resisting what others would have them take on. As the pressure continues, I pray they’ll do that again. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress gets closer to passage of the Matthew Shepherd Act, legislation that would enable the Justice Department to support the investigation of crimes based on hatred of particular groups, including gay and transgender people. A version of this bill has passed the House of Representatives and now looks as though it will come up for a vote tomorrow in the Senate. I called my senators this afternoon to tell them I support it. This morning I noted a Boston Globe op ed by Cornel West and Sylvia Rhue that calls to task clergy who have been claiming that this bill would infringe on religious freedom in any way. It won’t. 

As it so happens, late last week it came out that Marvin Nissin, a man serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 murder of Brandon Teena, as well as Phillip DeVine and Lisa Lambert, now claims that he, not his accomplice John Lotter, did the killings. The case of John Lotter, who is on death row, may now be reopened. Brandon Teena, who inspired the film Boys Don’t Cry, was murdered when his female birth sex was discovered. That kind of discovery also catalyzed the murder of Gwen Araujo in Newark, California ten years later and numerous similar murders have happened between and since. It is for precisely these kinds of cases that this federal legislation was written. 

And so on this day, as Anglicans—especially LGBTI ones—look for affirmation of our denomination’s polity and direction, and as LGBTI people of the U.S. await federal protection of our basic human dignity, I pray for an end to the fear on which division and hatred is based. 

​- The Rev'd Cameron Partridge