Shuck and Jive

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

More Yes Votes on B!

I just received this great news from Covnet:

Lehigh and Detroit both voted yes on amendment B tonight. Lehigh by a score of 60-46-2 and Detroit, 141-92. Both presbyteries had voted against equality last time around. That means 30 presbyteries have switched from a previous no to a yes.

The score is now 71-89.

This is good news in that even though B has failed, the witness and celebration of an inclusive church just on the horizon is strong!

GA in 2010 is looking better and better.

Thanks to all who keep speaking and voting for justice, equality, unity and peace!

The remaining presbyteries to vote include:
  • May 2 - Dakota, Minnesota Valleys, Southern New England
  • May 7 - Middle Tennessee, Northern Waters
  • May 9 - Utah
  • May 12 - East Iowa, Kiskiminetas, Pacific, Savannah
  • May 19 - Missouri River Valley
  • ?? - Noroeste, Suroeste


  1. The Presbytery meeting in Detroit yesterday was a good one. Though there were two tries to get us to 1) vote without debate (I suppose they wanted to get home to watch American Idol) and 2) to take no action, those were soundly defeated.

    We then split into small groups and had Bible study and discussed the Amendment. Then back to the plenary for debate and the vote. There was a lot of talk about not wanting to fight, but I didn't see any fighting anywhere and all the discussion and debate was respectful.

  2. Thanks, Alan.

    The whole thing about "fighting" is overblown. We are not fighting, we are voting.

    The majority of Detroit Presbytery has been historically equality-minded. We count it as a flip because of last time. Do you know what happened then?

  3. You know that's a great question, and I've been wracking my brain trying to remember what happened, but I don't. There were large dips in the "pro" voting even among traditionally affirming presbyteries across the denomination. I'm not sure what the deal was then.

    As for "fighting", I often think that the folks who equate voting with fighting missed something in the PCUSA brochures about how we operate.

  4. Here is my theory on the fighting rhetoric. Those who I have read that seem to enjoy using this rhetoric as well as such doozies as "the denomination is facing mass suicide" and so forth are trying to shame those advocating legislative change.

    Because many people are naturally uncomfortable with any disagreement, those who wish to keep discrimination in place take advantage of that natural discomfort and escalate the rhetoric so that simple legislative change, voting, debating, getting out the vote, etc. is akin to warfare.

    While I am pontificating, I think resolutions to the GA to remove B are similar to yearly resolutions to corporations to increase benefits etc. to their employees.

    At first they say no. Next time a few more say yes and so it goes year after year until the corporate board gets the wind of change and says, "Hey here is an idea! Let's increase benefits to our employees!"

    Ta da.

  5. If people don't like the "fighting" then perhaps they shouldn't have put B in the Book of Order in the first place.

    And, if people don't like the "fighting", I think there's one very obvious solution: vote to remove it.

    Problem solved! :)

    If we work outside the system and just ignore B, then they get ticked off that we're "flouting the constitution" as one of them told me once. If we work within the system, through the established Presbyterian means of overtures and votes, then we're "fighting" and disrupting the peace of the church, etc., etc., etc. It seems like it would be at least more honest for them to just come out and say, "shut up and go away."

    Oh, right. They already have.