See www.stmatts.com/sead/HARVEST/harvestjuly96.html for Radner's original proposal. Basically Radner wanted the moratorium on all sexuality legislation to last for seven triennia with the understanding that heterosex is normative. The bait to those that do not agree was his promise that they would not be prosecutred for acting on their beliefs.
Here's my answer:
I do not see legislation as 'win/lose,' and even if I did, I prefer the 8th resolve, the part that failed on D039, the sexuality resolution.
When that passes, i.e., when we do have services for same-sex unions in our official liturgies, as most on all sides seem to assume we will, I will still not see it as a 'victory.' 'Victory' is associated in my mind with 'winner take all'; I hope any decision, either way, would allow persons on both sides of the issue to continue to love one another and witness to our contrary understandings, much as evangelicals need not be suppressed by Anglocatholics and Anglocatholics need not be suppressed by evangelicals.
I served as secretary of the Social & Urban legislative committee to which that moratorium resolution was referred in Philadelphia. Bishop Paul Marshall had introduced the resolution, but he never came to speak to it, nor if I remember correctly, did anyone else. Bishop Marshall did come before a 6:30a meeting once to drop off some materials, which I passed along to the subcommittee. As best I remember the resolution died in committee at the recommendation of the subcommittee that dealt with it. Over 80 members and dealt with more resolutions than any other committee, so I may not be completely clear in my memory about this now three years later. I do know that thousands turned up at a hearing on other sexuality matters before us, and we structured the event to hear from an equal number of those for and against. I was the time-keeper, and even cut off Bishop Walter Righter when he reached the limit.
I did not speak to anyone on the committee about the moratorium proposal nor try to influence the committee's action in this regard.
Had I done so, I would have noted that one GC cannot bind the next GC, though obviously it can express a desire to do so.
When I first spotted the proposal (in a version in The Living Church, I believe), I responded in cyber forums that I thought it merited consideration and that if approved, should be amended to ask all persons to refrain from sexuality for the agreed upon period, just to stress how little or how much urgency there is to the issues being put on hold. This would also test whether delaying is meant to give time to discern God's will or as a tactic to enforce what has been pre-determined as God's will. Dr. Ann Carlson was the first person who suggested this test, and I still think it is a good one.
Please sign my guestbook and
view it.
Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.