BISHOPS: For: 4; Against: 0; Abstain: 0
CLERGY: For: 39; Against: 11; Abstain: 1
LAITY: For: 57; Against: 9; Abstain: 1
There you have it.
A summary of the con and pro arguments:
Arguments against were that it slowed down change, it is unnecessary bureaucracy, that Section 4 was more like a legal contract than covenant and was full of holes; that document was not really addressing the main issues - gay people, communication, interpretation of scripture - and was a red herring.
Arguments for were that the Episcopal church has been very naughty and needs punishing for the trouble it has caused; that good relationships with international colleagues are very important and the Covenant would keep them going; that Section 4 not really a very big stick; that Rowan is showing leadership and we need to back him; that they don't like Section 4 but is the only show in town so need to go with it. (My emphasis)
A comment to Lesley's post stated:
Unfortunately a lot of arguments for the Covenant seem to be based on the view that people don't want to be nasty to Rowan, and humiliate him. That seems to be a very weak argument in favour of something we could be stuck with for a very long time.
I agree wholeheartedly that not wanting to hurt or humiliate Dr Williams is a very weak excuse for supporting the daft covenant, and, being one of the naughty Episcopalians, I decided to leave a response at Lesley's blog, which is quoted here with slight editing:
If I may speak a few words about the election of Bp Gene Robinson. He was elected by the Episcopalians of the State of New Hampshire. He was not an unknown. He had served as a priest in NH, a very small state, for 12 years and was well-known in the churches around the state.
NH is not a hotbed of liberalism. At the present time, NH has one Democratic senator and one Republican senator. Both members of the House of Representatives are Republican.
Back in 2003, when Bp Gene was elected, I was not in favor of having partnered gay persons as bishops, but despite my misgivings, even I could not see why the people of NH shouldn't have the person they chose as their bishop. When the time came for consents to be given by the bishops and Standing Committees of the dioceses in the Episcopal Church, Bp Gene received sufficient favorable votes.
Have the English folk who are quick to blame us for all the troubles in the Anglican Communion and want TEC punished for its naughtiness (which, by the way, hardly seems Christlike to me) thought that there may have been other reasons for giving consents to Gene Robinson besides a lack of care for the other churches in the AC?
The truth is that we in TEC cherish our relationships throughout the Anglican Communion, some of which are extremely close. At the same time, we also cherish our relationships amongst the dioceses in our own church. If the people in NH wanted Bp Gene for their bishop, why should they have been denied, simply because the man they chose was in anopen, loving, committed relationship with his partner Mark?
Sometimes, choices must be made, and the majority of those in TEC who voted on consents decided that the just and right thing to do was to give the folks in NH the bishop they wanted.
Of course, I'm well aware that the view from "over there" may be quite different, but I wanted to speak my piece from "over here".
