Plenary Session Proceedings
Thursday, April 25: Evening Session

1996 United Methodist General Conference

Thursday Evening
April 25, 1996

BISHOP C.P. MINNICK JR.: Sisters and brothers, let us please now find our places and take our seats. We are ready to move into our time of prayer in preparation for the events of the evening. Please will you take your seats now? Please be seated. We are ready to begin.

This General Conference of 1996 will live for many years in my memory, not because it is the last General Conference before my retirement, which is four months, four days, four hours and 57 minutes away. But it shall remain always in my memory because it, more than any other General Conference, has been clothed in the mantle of prayer. We have begun every session with a time of prayerful reflection with a prayer partner or partners. And I hope you're aware of the fact, and I'm sure most of you are, that for the past nine days for 24 hours a day, the Council of Bishops, together with delegates and reserve delegates and guests, have been involved in a prayer vigil around the clock each day. As a result of our life of prayer together, we have felt the power and presence of God with us in a very special way.

Right now let's turn again to a time of prayer. Find a prayer partner or partners. And as we begin this time, let's sing together as a prayer of invocation and as words of commitment, the Spirit Song. It's on page 347. The Spirit Song. You may remain seated while we sing prayerfully.

ST KIMBROUGH: And in an attitude of prayer, we may imagine ourselves as the church, without the instrument of an organ or a piano for ten centuries, gathering as a people, preparing itself in prayer with the concert of our voices.

BISHOP MINNICK: Now will you, with your prayer partner or partners, enter into a time of prayerful reflection? Let us join now together in praying the prayer that Jesus taught the disciples of old to pray.

Well, as we begin our work tonight, I will turn again to Fitzgerald Reist and Sarah Miller to set the direction for us.

Sister Sarah Miller will tell us the direction in which we are moving tonight.

SARAH S. MILLER (Wyoming): We'll begin this evening by trying to complete the items on abortion that we did not complete this afternoon. We'll go directly from that to finishing up the remaining items on homosexuality. We'll have several different legislative committees coming and bringing their items that relate to that subject. At the completion of that work, we hope to move on to remaining items from the Legislative Committee on Discipleship.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, thank you. So we'll turn first to Don Pike, chair of Church and Society, to lead us again in the legislative items that he has.

DON M. PIKE (Central Texas): Thank you, Bishop. We resume where we were, as the bishop said, before we adjourned and I expressed to the body their willingness to trust the committee. I think you will discover that all that we dealt with in terms of the previous actions will indeed be encapsulated in what we're about to do in order to give you an opportunity to discuss.

Let me invite you, if you would please, to turn in your white DCA to page 1226. We will be dealing with Petition 22584. You will find it in the left-hand column, middle of the page. It is calendar item, found on page 477; Calendar Item 1982. Right-hand column, the very bottom of the page, dealing with rights of the unborn. You'll notice that the legislative committee voted on concurrence by a vote of 50, 35, to zero; there is a minority report which you will find on the following page, 478. Bishop, would it be appropriate at this time; do we begin with the minority report? Is that correct, Sir?

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes. You will remember from this afternoon, it was noted that we have no process in our Rules of Order for a minority report being brought to an item that is nonconcurred-with by the legislative committee. So we will address this by first hearing the minority report.

PIKE: All right, Bishop. Elizabeth Wright will address the minority report and then Beth Capen will be prepared to respond to the majority report. Elizabeth?

BISHOP MINNICK: All right.

ELIZABETH A. WRIGHT (Virginia): Thank you, Don. I would ask you to please, as Don has requested, to turn to Calendar Item 1982; begins the bottom of page 478. Bishops, colleagues, I rise to present the minority report. Add a new subparagraph after 72C and re-letter all the following sentences: "While the full rights of women must always be respected, unborn children are acknowledged to be human beings in their own right. Although there is no consensus as to when human life begins, unborn children are deserving of treatment that is due those who are made in the image of God. Thus we support the development of adoption agencies, counseling services for expectant mothers, care services, centers for unwed mothers designed to protect the sacred worth of the unborn child."

I served on the Human Sexuality Subcommittee which prayerfully examined the disciplinary statement on abortion. Beth Capen described that process to you this afternoon and it was an experience that none of us in the committee will ever forget. It was truly a beautiful time together. The statement is a fair and thoughtful statement which describes with power and compassion the tragic conflict of life with life. I stand with my sisters and brothers of the legislative team on the abortion statement, which has been accepted through the Consent Calendar.

Now, it is appropriate after affirming the rights of a woman over her own body to bring our disciplinary statement full circle to consider the rights of the unborn child. In dealing with this issue, the critical question is: "When is a human being a human being?" As we discussed this in our subcommittee, it became obvious that we were not all of one mind about when life truly begins. Using magnificent biblical imagery, one of the group spoke passionately of God blowing the very breath of life into a human being. "It is then, at birth, that life begins!" said that person. Others spoke of the beating heart as the beginning of life. Another talked about the emergence of brain-waves as being the definitive sign of life. Said yet another, "The medical profession does not presume the question. They say it is a theological issue." It was then that someone in our subcommittee spoke the words of God to Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I sanctified you."

We began our discussion with Biblical imagery; we ended with scripture. And still, there is not agreement. There is no absolute on when life truly begins. If you have ever thought about when an embryo or a fetus becomes a human being, a human being deserving treatment due those made in the image of God; if you have never thought about it, think about it now! Study about it; pray about it. Come to some conclusion about it in your own heart and mind. For it is a great moral and theological question of our day.

If we believe that at any point during human pregnancy the unborn child becomes a true human being, then it becomes a theological imperative to consider what might be the rights of the unborn child. Such consideration of the unborn is not in contradiction to our disciplinary position on abortion. Indeed, it affirms and dignifies that position, that which we have already approved. It seems entirely appropriate for this General Conference to go on record to encourage the development of adoption agencies, counseling and support services for expectant mothers, care services for unwed mothers to protect the wellbeing and the sacred worth of the unborn as well as the mother. I encourage you to vote in favor of the minority report. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: We're going to treat this as an amendment by substitution to the nonconcurrence of the legislative committee. So, we're ready now for you to address this minority report substitute. Is there someone who will speak for it? All right, in the back here. Microphone 9.

SHARON L. DUGER (North Central New York): As a woman, as a mother, as a mother of three stillborns, I need to tell you that at 13 weeks after conception, I had a sonogram and I saw a child sucking its thumb. When does life begin? This is the question. I think life began when God created human beings and when God stated that what we must do is procreate. Now we're not in that kind of culture now, but we must look to the Biblical scriptures for answers. We must look to our own hearts, and we must pray and find what God would have us do when we look at the--what you would call a fetus--what I would call a human being waiting to be. This is in favor of this amendment or motion.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, is there someone who will speak against the amendment? Yes, I see a card here in the back. Microphone 7.

CHARLES PEARCE (Florida): I have an amendment at this moment, Bishop, if I may.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right.

PEARCE: I move that everything under rights of the unborn be deleted with the exception of the following, "We support the development of adoption agencies, counseling services for expectant mothers, and centers for unwed mothers." If I have a second, I'll speak to it.

BISHOP MINNICK: It's seconded. You may speak.

PEARCE: Thank you, sir. As a father of four adopted children, we need to pay more attention to the mother that wants to have her child. And I think, I don't believe I'll take the whole three minutes, but I would like to tell you that Terrell Sessums had a grandson today, three hours ago. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: Congratulations. Let me remind you that by your action this afternoon, we are limiting our speeches to two for and two against each, to two minutes only. Is there someone who would speak against the amendment? All right, over here. Microphone 7.

ROB BASZNER (North Indiana): I would speak against this amendment. It is my belief that this minority report in its fullness is not only essential to affirming the love for unborn children, but also crucial to affirming the love for young children in our country. Yesterday the first lady spoke to us on our mission as a church to solve problems facing young children all over the globe, especially child abuse and child abandonment. I believe there is a direct connection between our love and treatment of the unborn and love and treatment of young children. If we deny love and respect to unborn children, how can parents be expected to love and treat their young children with respect? Abortion has instilled the attitude in our society that children are not valuable unless they are planned and wanted.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, is there a speech for the amendment? Over here on the front, yes? Microphone 4.

EARL R. RENSHAW (Southern Illinois): This is a question. I heard our first speaker say a few moments ago that the basic statement on abortion is on the Consent Calendar and has been approved. I would like to know where that appears in our DCA?

BISHOP MINNICK: All right.

ELIZABETH WRIGHT (Virginia): It appears, Bishop, if I may.

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes, please.

WRIGHT: It appears on the Consent Calendar, page 305, number 809. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, is there a speech for? That was just a question. All right. In the back here. Go to microphone 13, if you will.

BARBARA LEMMEL (Troy): I speak against this amend...no, I take that back.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, you're speaking for it.

LEMMEL: I speak for this amendment because I believe that what has been deleted by this amendment is already covered under 71H, which speaks about the sanctity of unborn human life and also about the reluctance to approve abortion and the considerations necessary in the circumstances of the life of the mother. I also would like to say in response to the previous statement about child abuse that wanted children are more rarely abused than unwanted children.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, we've had two speeches for and one against. Is there someone who would like to speak against the amendment? All right, right here. Microphone 3, please.

PENNEY SCHWAB (Kansas West): While I affirm the intent of the maker of the motion of the amendment, I really believe that we can only address this issue as we come to it from our emotions. The minority report, as unamended, speaks to what our Discipline now affirms, the tragic necessity, or the tragic conflict of life on life. It also gives a very clear statement of compassion to those who have lost a child through stillbirth, for those who have experienced infertility, and I think it just provides the very best balance in a situation where we are certainly not of one mind on this issue any more than we are on some others.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, thank you. Now there have been two speeches for and two against and it's time to vote on this amendment. Do you need it read to you again? It's on page 478 as you know, to delete everything in the paragraph except the one, two, three, four...the last five sentences and the last word of the sentence before that, so that it reads, "we support the development," etc. All right, it's before you now for the vote. Please vote when the light appears.

BISHOP MINNICK: The amendment is lost, 584 votes to 281. All right, we are back to the minority report. We have had one speech for and one against. Is there someone who would speak for the report? All right. Over here. Microphone 5.

CHRISTIAN ALSTED (Denmark): I speak for this Minority Report because I think this is not only a petition about abortion. In my country, we have an Ethical Council elected by the Parliament. And this Council has stated that life begins at conception. In my country, we also have free abortion, and the Ethical Council has not given their statement to stop abortion, but they had given their statement to protect the embryo against experimenting like genetic manipulation. I think the minority report gives us an important foundation to speak against genetic experiments, because its states that life begins before birth.

BISHOP MINNICK: Thank you. We've had two speeches for, one against. Is there someone who will speak against? Back, way in the back. Microphone 14, yes.

ROBERT HOSHIBATA (Pacific Northwest): I speak against the minority report at this time, because I believe in my heart that all the situations that we would need to deal with are covered under the current language in the Discipline, as well as the amended version of Paragraph 72C in question. I have been involved with persons who have come to me, as their pastor, asking for counsel and guidance and a word of faith as they have faced an unwanted pregnancy. In the anguish of that consultation, the words currently in the Discipline have served me well. I believe that the current problem, or the reason why we are having this debate, is a struggle over the language and the discussion whether a life begins at a conception or somewhere else along the way. I firmly believe, as a father of three children, that conception marks the beginning of life. However, struggling over that question of the terminology between unborn human life and unborn children will not help us in any way to determine the right answer for a person in crisis. I urge our voting against the minority report, deferring instead to the current language as amended by our Church and Society committee.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. We've had two speeches for and two against. We'll turn now to see if there is a further statement from the Chair of the Minority Report, and then we'll hear from the Legislative Committee Chair.

WRIGHT: As I mentioned to you earlier, in the subcommittee, as we discussed abortion, there was not only consensus, but we were of one mind on the disciplinary statement as it exists. Now in your Consent Calendar, you will see that there is an amendment that we made. But certainly we would agree with each of you about the validity of the abortion statement that is already in the Discipline. I would like to say that the focus in the abortion statement in the Consent Calendar, the focus is primarily on the rights of women and the care of the mother. Whereas the minority report focuses more on the unborn child, and I heard someone say something about balance, and perhaps that is what this might afford. Bishop Minnick, under the rules, I would like to call on Jessica Moffatt of the Oklahoma Delegation to begin our summation, if I may please.

BISHOP MINNICK: I believe that would not be in order since we have already had the -.

WRIGHT: No? Then if I may make the closing remarks then. BISHOP MINNICK: You may.

WRIGHT: Obviously, as we have talked together tonight, there is diversity in our church among people of good faith. And that diversity reaches into this very issue. This minority report is not designed to negate our denomination's long held and respected stand on abortion; and I quote once more "the tragic conflict of life with life", but rather, this is to affirm the rights of the unborn from whatever time, from whatever point you believe that human life truly begins.

Whether you believe life is breathed into a baby at the moment of birth, or if you believe that life in the image of God begins sometime during the gestation period, I trust you agree it is incumbent upon The United Methodist Church to provide for the life and welfare of the unborn as well as the pregnant woman. I invite you to support the minority report.

BISHOP MINNICK: Thank you, we turn now to the legislative committee chair.

BETH CAPEN (New York): The paragraph 71h, that is the paragraph regarding abortion, was unanimously supported. The legislative committee, in regard to the rights of the unborn, by a majority, did reject this language. There were a number of reasons. However, I believe that, and I hope I'm representing this fairly, I believe that one of the primary reasons why some people rejected this, was because there was a belief that was covered under the language that is currently provided for in 71h, and also within the Social Principles is an additional paragraph regarding adoption. Another sentiment that I heard expressed, and that indeed is my own personal sentiment, is that there is some difficulty regarding the language that is presented in the paragraph entitled, "Rights of the Unborn," as it undermines the spirit of the language, which we agree is good language, in paragraph 71h.

One of the arguments of the minority is that it recognizes the conflict of life with life, and indeed, that language is currently in the legislation which we have already approved here. Also recognized in the paragraph 71h, which has been adopted, as amended, is the following: "Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion, but we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases, support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion." And this is the new language: "We commit our church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth." We urge you to vote no on the vote that you are about to take regarding the minority report. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: Now the minority report under Calendar Item 1982 is before you for your vote, please vote when the light appears. The minority report does not prevail. It lost by a vote of 399 for 497 against.

BISHOP MINNICK: Now we're back to the matter of nonconcurrence on Calendar Item 1982. Let us vote on this when the light appears. To complete this legislative process, please, will the booth give us vote here, the voting process. All right, please vote when the light appears. You have supported the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence by a vote of 619 to 281.

DON M. PIKE (Central Texas): Bishop Minnick, the next item that we would address you will find in your white DCA if you would please turn to page 1236. It is Petition 22621, you'll find that at the very bottom of the right hand column, entitled, "Membership in Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice." It is Calendar Item found on page 478, Calendar Item 1985. The committee voted 46 for, 27 against, 4 not voting, for nonconcurrence; and you will note there is a minority report. Mike Lowry will represent that minority report and Beth Capen will, in turn, share the thoughts of the legislative committee.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, the minority report is before you as an amendment by substitution to the recommendation of nonconcurrence. Yes. Point of order, microphone 7.

CHUCK E. HEFLEY (North Indiana): The minority report is the exact wording of the paragraph, after amended, that we voted on. So, according to our rules, it cannot be submitted as a minority report.

BISHOP MINNICK: Let us check that out. I believe the point of order is well taken, and so this would not be in order at this time. So the committee's recommendation for nonconcurrence is before you. Are you ready to vote? I see in the back here, microphone 7.

GARNETT WILDER (North Georgia): We seem to be having continued difficultly because we didn't cover this in our rules at the beginning. I stood to make a motion to address this situation, but was deferred by the chair. I want to try a motion at this time. I move a suspension of the rules as they apply to the minority reports in order that minority reports may be considered without legislative impairment or encumbrance.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, that is before us and has been seconded. That is a suspension of the rules, and this takes a two-thirds majority to approve. Are you clear on what- ? All right, if you will suspend the rules, will you lift a hand? Well, no, let's vote with the machine. If you will suspend the rules, vote when the light appears. You did not suspend the rules. [Results: yes, 249; no, 553] So, we will proceed. And the committee's recommendation for nonconcurrence is before you. Please vote when the light appears. You have supported the committee's recommendations. And we'll move on to the next item.[Results: yes, 537 ; no, 269]

PIKE: All right, Bishop, that concludes all of the- .

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes. Microphone 3.

WILLIAM D. PEEPLES (Louisiana): I'm not sure what we just voted on. It clicked through too fast. I'm not sure where we are on that.

BISHOP MINNICK: I apologize for that. It was Calendar Item 1985. The legislative committee recommended nonconcurrence.

PEEPLES: And we supported nonconcurrence?

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes. Let me apologize, All right?

PIKE: All right, Bishop, that concludes all of the items that deal with the subject of abortion. And I believe, according to the calendar that we are pursuing this evening, we now turn to multi-committee petitions relative to homosexuality, is that correct?

BISHOP MINNICK: That's correct. All right.

PIKE: So I would need to ask that those, I guess, representing the other committees would begin to make their way up here. And also there is a minority report, Charles Pearce, that some of you signed. Whoever is speaking for that minority report needs to come to the platform. We would begin in your red DCA on page 142. In your red DCA on page 142.

It is Petition 21473; 21473. You'll find it on the right-hand side of the page at the very bottom of the column. This is calendar item found on page 386; page 386. And it is Calendar Number 1678. You will find it on the left-hand side of the page at the very top. By a vote of 47 to 15, 12 not voting, the committee recommends concurrence as amended. You can see the difference in the two documents; you can compare the conclusion in the red DCA with the final wording in your blue DCA. The committee recommends concurrence 47, 15, 12.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, this is Calendar Item 1678 is before you. The committee recommends concurrence. Is there discussion on this item? All right, you will vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 617; no, 209] The committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence is sustained by a vote of 617 to 209. Concurrence, I'm sorry.

PIKE: It is concurrence, yes, sir. All right, the next item, if you would turn in your white DCA to page 1218; white DCA, page 1218. It is Petition 22311; Petition 22311. You'll find it in the bottom right-hand column, supporting the rights of former homosexuals. It is calendared on page 477. Calendar Item 1981. You will find it right in the middle of the page, center column, Calendar 1981. The committee recommends concurrence as amended; 59 for, 8 against, 6 not voting. You'll notice we have a majority report and a minority report. Charles Pearce will be presenting the minority report; and Dale Weatherspoon and I will be handling the legislative committee's report.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. First, we shall move to present both. You have further things you want to say about the committee's report?

PIKE: No, we'll wait till the last, Bishop.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, we'll turn now and have the minority report presented.

CHARLES PEARCE (Florida): Bishop, and very fair Conference, I really wasn't expecting this right at the time. Over the last few years we have noticed that in our society name changes. Going to African- Americans--from Black to African-Americans; from Indians to Native Americans. And we want people to be called what they want to be called. And I stand before you today, urging you to support the minority report, which the transforming congregations, who have been meeting you in the afternoon to give you their newsletter, they requested that they not be called former homosexuals, but they want to be called--let me read my last story, anyway.

To not support this minority report denies the testimony of former homosexuals, such as Ron Dennis. Ron spent 34 years as a homosexual. He knew he was a homosexual as a child. He marched in Gay Pride parades, and he is a homosexual no more because he came to Jesus Christ while in the gay church. Afterwards, he read in the Bible that homosexuality was wrong, and this spoke to his heart. He left the gay lifestyle. He found a new church. His life was transformed. In a ministry, Ron has helped others to leave homosexuality. It is wrong to deny that Ron was a homosexual, as this amendment seeks to do. He was a homosexual; he is one no more. Therefore, it's only proper to call him a former homosexual, not a supposed homosexual.

The amendment is saying that he and others were never really homosexuals. And to deny this is to play a word game which refuses to rejoice in the freedom that Christ has brought to former homosexuals. Join me in seeking justice. Join me in seeking equality and openness to all persons and groups, and allow Ron to be called a former homosexual. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, we'll move now to perfect the majority report. Any amendments you might want to make to it, so please come and present it as you will.

PIKE: We'll simply let it stand as it is, Bishop, and we'll make a comment at the very end. We can perfect it with the body.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Are there amendments that you would like to make? Now, not speeches for or against at this time, just amendments. All right, right here, microphone number 8.

JEREMY VETTER (Nebraska): I would like to amend the majority report.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, what is your amendment?

VETTER: I would like to amend by substituting a new sentence for the last sentence which appears in the minority report. This sentence will read...

BISHOP MINNICK: We're perfecting the majority report.

VETTER: Yes, I'd like to replace the last sentence in the majority report with the following sentence: "We also commit ourselves to social witness against the coercion and marginalization of former homosexuals."

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Is it seconded? It is seconded. All right. Are there other amendments?

VETTER: Can I speak in favor of my amendment?

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes, you may.

VETTER: We haven't voted on it yet, correct?

BISHOP MINNICK: That's right.

VETTER: OK. I was the one in the Committee on Church and Society who made the original amendment. In some discussions with people since then, I have learned that the language that I originally thought was sensitive to both sides, is not sensitive to many in the transforming congregations group. But, yet I think the statement needs to be placed in a separate statement, because former homosexuals face different kinds of pressures in society than do homosexuals. That's why I put it at the end, and that's why I made it that language which the minority report is advocating. I think that this amendment addresses the main concern of the minority report, but yet does it in a way that is sensitive to the important rights that are protected for homosexuals in this paragraph of the Discipline. I urge you to support this amendment and the majority report.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, that's a speech for. Is there a speech against it? I see no speeches against it. Another speech for it here? Microphone 3.

DAVID A. BANKS (North Carolina): I don't want to be presumptuous of those who signed the minority report, but I would support the amendment that Jeremy has put forward. I think indeed it does satisfy the desire of the minority report. It calls those who consider themselves homosexual what they prefer to be called.

It calls those who consider themselves former homosexuals what they prefer to be called. And, I think it has the best title of the two reports. And I would recommend, personally, that we accept the amendment and then approve the majority report.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. There have been two speeches for. Are there any against the amendment. Right here, microphone 3.

BECKY HAASE (California-Pacific): I would oppose this amendment, because I think as the last speaker said, this makes it like the minority report. I think it does not give us the choice of using the language which is here which I think is very appropriate. The fact that people formerly understood themselves homosexual can suggest that maybe there was a change or maybe there was not a change and I just think it is important for us to leave the language as it stands in the majority report.

BISHOP MINNICK: Thank you. All right. We've had two speeches for and one against. Does anyone else wish to speak against the amendment? I see no one asking for the floor. I believe you are ready to vote. So you will vote on the amendment when the light appears. [Results: yes, 522; no, 363] The amendment is approved.

BISHOP MINNICK: So we will proceed now to further perfect the majority report. Any other amendments to it? Microphone 14.

WARNER BROWN JR. (California-Nevada): Parliamentary inquiry. I need the help of the chair. It would appear that the minority report is merely a reverse of the majority report. Earlier in our proceedings, we have had situations where minority reports with similar intent have been ruled out of order. I request your assistance in understanding the difference in this situation.

BISHOP MINNICK: Well at this point, I will simply rule that we are in order and will proceed to address these majority, minority reports and let the body act as it will on them. Microphone 13.

ALYS RICHARDS (North Texas): The voting box on my particular table is no longer functioning. Could we please have it fixed. It is section B, row 18.

BISHOP MINNICK: Will someone please take care of that. Thank you. We are still perfecting the majority report, item 1981. Are there any other amendments? Yes? Microphone 10.

JOEL GARRETT (Western Pennsylvania): As I read paragraph 71H, it speaks to the guaranteeing of basic human rights and civil rights. To enlighten me as I prepare to vote, can I have some examples of how human rights, those basic human rights, and civil liberties are being denied to people who are former homosexuals or who...

BISHOP MINNICK: Do you have an amendment to make at this point?

GARRETT: No mine is a question, I need some information.

BISHOP MINNICK: Let us proceed to perfect the document. Then we will vote later and have any debate that you might want to have. Over here.

DAVID RICHARDSON (California-Pacific): With just the amendment that we made, both of these are the exact word for word now. I compared them word for word. The last speaker made me look at them. I don't see that there is a word difference; not even an "and."

BISHOP MINNICK: We are perfecting the two and you will make the decision as to which you would support. Over here. Microphone 1. Microphone 2. Yes?

JINNY GORDON (Central Illinois): Bishop, in light of what we just passed, I would like to go back to the original language that was struck where they took out "former homosexuals." It's down in the last paragraph, about six lines down.

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes.

GORDON: "And former homosexual persons" was struck. I would like to reinstate that in place of "homosexual persons."

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. The motion is to put in again the deleted words "and former homosexual persons." Is there a second to that? It is seconded. All right. Would you...

GORDON: May I speak to it?

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes.

GORDON: This has been a hard issue for all of us. All of us are trying to be fair. I feel very strongly that those who have found a new life in Christ have found a transforming power in their life, and I think to deny that Christ can change lives is really a serious mistake. I hope you'll support this amendment.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, the amendment is before you. Is there someone who will speak against it? All right, I'll go all the way to microphone 13, here.

BILL BARNEY (Troy): Our committee decision on this really tried to be sensitive to the concerns of those who understand themselves to be, or are former homosexuals. And one of the things that I would speak against this amendment for, is that the writing in this very important part of the Social Principles which we adopted four years ago does apply only to homosexual persons. The issues here-- shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney and so on-- are simply not issues for someone who is a former homosexual. They do not need to have their rights protected against violations regarding these issues. So it is very important that we keep the language clean in this paragraph and add the sentence at the end to provide for the former homosexual persons among us and let the homosexual rights be protected, as we did in this very momentous moment four years ago.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, that is a speech against. Is there a speech for? Over here, microphone 5.

JUNE P. GOLDMAN (Iowa): Bishop, excuse me, I do need a point of clarification. I thought that when we just voted and passed the amendment that was made, that we took care of this concern. Perhaps I lost it someplace. The young man who made the amendment, crossed out, I thought, the words "who supposed themselves to be former, supposed themselves to be homosexual," I thought that we, by passing that amendment, restored the intent of having the concept that we were protecting those who are both homosexual and former homosexuals. Could you tell me what we did when we passed that amendment?

BISHOP MINNICK: The maker of this motion feels like that these words need to be added for his satisfaction. So, it is up to the body to decide whether or not to include them again. Is there some speech against this? Yes. Microphone 8.

MICHAEL WEAVER (Virginia): Since the issue of the rights of homosexual or former homosexual persons is at issue, I would request that you read the amendment that was just passed.

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes, you have it. We'll let the secretary read that.

CAROLYN MARSHALL: (unintelligible)

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Is there someone who would speak against the amendment that is before us, which is to reinstate the words "and former homosexual persons" which had been deleted. All right. Over here. Microphone 4.

MERLIN J. ACKERSON (Iowa): I think the way the secretary just read the amendment, it takes care of the concern of the delegate who made this last amendment. But I rise also--by the way, I rise to support the majority report as it's now amended because of a deep concern. And that concern is that I think we do talk about former homosexuals. By the way, if there are persons of this nature, that's who they are and I'll accept that. But I think the implication too often is that people who are gay and lesbian can change if they want to or if they go through certain procedures, prayer and so forth. Now that may be true for some, but I think to imply that for all is a bit dangerous because the testimony of many of my gay and lesbian friends and acquaintances is that this is who they are. This not something they can change. It may be true for some, but for many, it is not true.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, I have two speeches for and two against, although some who have said they were speaking for or against, have spoken in ways that to me were not clear, but as to which side they were on. Are you ready to vote on this amendment? Point of clarification, microphone 4.

LOIS BROWN ROGERS (Peninsula-Delaware): Thank you, Bishop. On that last amendment, she said to reinstate, in the sentence that was half- way down the paragraph, "former homosexual persons."

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes.

ROGERS: Did she also mean to reinstate "rights of homosexual and former homosexual persons" in the title?

BISHOP MINNICK: That was not in the amendment that was offered.

ROGERS: Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, you understand, do you, the amendment that is before us, which is to restore the words that were deleted, the words, "and former homosexual persons." If you support that, will you, well, whether or not you support it, vote your feelings when the light appears. The amendment is not supported. [Results: yes, 422; no, 475] All right, are there other amendments to be made to the majority report which we are perfecting? Over here, microphone 5, the second row, if you will.

AL GWINN (Kentucky): Thank you, Bishop. I move we suspend rule 36, and vote on all that is before us.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. You hear the motion. It takes, of course, two-thirds majority to suspend the rules, in order to vote on all that's before us. If you will suspend the rules, would you lift the hand? Opposed? You have clearly suspended the rules. All right, if you will, this is a bit redundant, but perhaps it ought to be done. If you will now call for the previous question, please indicate that desire when the light appears. All right, you are ready to conclude that. [854 approved] That's, right. Are you ready? Well - I would like to ask first the minority, if they're ready to accept this majority report as amended.

DON PIKE: Bishop, Charles Pearce went back to his seat, if you...

BISHOP MINNICK: Charles, are you? All right. Charles Pearce is ready to accept this, representing the minority, is willing to accept this majority report as amended. All right, Don we're ready for your speech.

PIKE: All right. Really, the central issue, as you look at it, is to decide whether or not you call the person who was once practicing homosexuality and now who is not, are you going to call them a "former homosexual person," or are you going to call them "one who formerly understood themselves to be a homosexual person?" And we'll leave it up to the body to decide which they prefer. That's, that's the issue between the two reports. Quite frankly, I think they are congruent.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. The majority report is before you. All right, is there a question or point of order here? Microphone 8.

JOSEPH D. HUSTON (West Michigan): Is the majority report now identical to the minority report?

BISHOP MINNICK: Basically, yes.

HUSTON: Is everyone clear on that, that the majority report now is identical to the minority report?

BISHOP MINNICK: But the minority has accepted the majority report as is.

HUSTON: Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: As amended.

HUSTON: Then may I ask for the majority report, as it is amended right now, to be read for us so that we can all be clear?

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. The whole thing needs to be read, the majority report as amended. We'll ask the secretary to do that and then we will vote.

CAROLYN MARSHALL: "Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due to all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons. We see a clear issue. Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against gays and lesbians. We also commit ourselves to social witness against the coercion and marginalization of former homosexuals."

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, it's before you. Vote when the light appears. And you have supported the committee. You have affirmed it. [739 approved] All right.

DON PIKE: Bishop Minnick, at this particular time one of the efforts that is being made, that I would share with the plenary is tonight to deal with all the issues related to the issue of homosexuality that are vested in each of the legislative committees. Those that have other items to present, they are legal, because their's have been in the DCA long enough. I need to know the will of the body in that we have two more items that were printed in today's DCA. As I understand the protocol of the General Conference, we would have to suspend the rules in order for us to be able to consider them tonight. Let me invite you as you would deliberate that in your mind to turn to page 583 in your blue DCA. You will find Calendar Items 2402 and 2403. Now let me tell you where to find them in your other DCA's. For 2402, it's in the white DCA page 1212. It is Petition 22493. It is at the very bottom of the right hand column. The heading is "Ceremonies That Celebrate Homosexual Union." That would be one that we would consider if you so desire. The other is found on page 1213, just across. Petition--by the way let me tell you that the committee on Ceremonies that Celebrate Homosexual Unions voted concurrence 29, 25 and 5. The one on 1213 is Petition 22301. The vote was nonconcurrence 59, 37 to 18. But if we're to deal with those tonight, it would require a suspension of the rules and to test the will of the body, I would move that we suspend the rules in order to be able to deal with these two issues.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. It will take a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules. If you are willing to do that in order to consider these two items, will you vote when the light appears? [ 829 approved] You are ready to consider these two items. You have suspended the rules.

PIKE: All right, Bishop Minnick, let's begin then in the white DCA on page 1212. Calendar Item 2402 as found, as I suggested to you, on 583. Petition 22493. The committee recommended concurrence 29, 25 and 5. Dale Weatherspoon was chairman of that subcommittee and he will be prepared to speak to that.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Brother Weatherspoon.

DALE WEATHERSPOON (Cal-Nevada): In our sub-area, and also in the legislative area, one of the questions that we had was whether we should have received this petition or whether it should have gone to the Board of Ordained Ministries. But we acted on this petition and the vote, 29 to 25, felt that ceremonies should not be conducted by ministers in our churches.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. This is before you. Is there a speech against it? Right here, microphone 3.

SALLY DYCK (E. Ohio): And in my church there is a custom of asking myself, the pastor, to come and bless a home when a family moves. It would just be my question of, that it's OK to bless an inanimate object like a home, a house, and what goes on there, and not two person who have decided to only have relations with each other. And also, what constitutes a ceremony? I don't think that this legislation indicates what is a ceremony. Does it involve what might be affirmed in the course of counseling or perhaps a gathering around a table? It does not address that and furthermore, it also doesn't seem to be consistent with social principles. It seems to be more a matter of ministerial and pastoral relationships, so I would speak against it, because it raises too many questions.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Is there a speech for? Yes, over here, microphone 5.

JACKSON BREWER (Kentucky): This week we have affirmed the social principles concerning the relationship of homosexuality to the Christian lifestyle. And it seems to me that this petition is an enhancement of those social principle stand. This issue is of great concern to lay people in our local churches particularly as I notice that this one comes from the Newport Grace Church of which I happen to be the District Superintendent. And so I feel strongly that I want to speak to say that I support this action.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Is there a speech against? All the way back, microphone 14.

ELAINE STANOVSKY (Pacific Northwest): Is the motion to refer in order?

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes, it would be in order.

STANOVSKY: I move that we refer this to the Board of Ordained Ministry -- Board of Higher Education in Ministry.

BISHOP MINNICK: Is there a second to that?

STANOVSKY: Can I speak to that?

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes, you may.

STANOVSKY: It seems to me that this is an item that's all tangled up with questions of authority and responsibility and accountability of ordained ministers, and ought to be looked at in the context of the broader considerations in that regard.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, the motion to refer is before you. Is there someone speak against the referral? Right here, microphone 2.

J. ERIC MCKINNEY (Central Texas): I'd simply ask this conference to be honest about where we are, and deal with this tonight. To refer, simply delays the possibility of making a decision as a General Conference. I'd ask that we move on and vote against referral.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Is there anyone else to speak for referral? Over there at microphone 7, microphone 7. I could not see it for that person standing.

PHILLIP WOGAMAN (Baltimore-Washington): Bishop, I speak in favor of referral partly because of the substance that is at stake here. Perhaps even more because of the form. The statement of Social Principles is not a juridical document. And yet what we are contemplating now is a juridical action. The Social Principles are teaching tools. They express the teaching of the church on many subjects. I doubt there's anybody in this room who fully agrees with everything in all of the Social Principles. And yet they hold principles before us to guide our thinking and to direct our hearts in the direction that our church as a whole has approved. To begin to think of the Social Principles as a juridical document, one that is enforceable as a direct aspect of the polity of the church, distorts all of the relationships in the Discipline. The motion of referral, on the other hand, is to set this question before the right body in the church with the understanding that it can bring to us some suggestions about the best way to handle what is, at best, a very tangled, complex, difficult and sometimes heart-wrenching, human pastoral problem. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: Now let me ask the maker of the motion, I understood her to refer it to the Committee on Ministry to report back to us tomorrow. Please, microphone 14.

ELAINE STANOVSKY (Pacific Northwest): My motion was to report to the Board of Higher Education and Ministry.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Thank you. We have had two speeches for and one against. Is there anyone who would speak against referral? Let me go back here to microphone 8. Yes.

HERCHEL SHEETS (North Georgia): This is a matter that has to do not just with the ministers of our church but it has to do with the whole church. And it is something that should be decided by this body and not referred to the Board of Higher Education and Ministry.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, you've had two speeches for and two against. The motion is to refer. You will vote when the light appears. You have not referred it, so we're back to the item 2402. We've had two speeches against it and one for. Does someone speak for it? Anyone else? Yes, microphone 10. We need a French translator, please.

FRENCH TRANSLATOR: Can you hear me?

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes.

FRENCH TRANSLATOR: I would like to speak in French first. (translating) My name is Akasa Umembudi, and I come from Central Zaire.

AKASA UMEMBUDI (Central Zaire): (translation) We've had some difficulties with these amendments because some of them are not very well translated. But on this particular question which is under discussion now, we're having a little difficulty understanding the orientation, the direction that you're taking. Are we trying to regulate the homosexual life or are we going to be faithful to what we said yesterday? Are we going to also try to regulate the lives of people who kill their friends? And also to regulate the partnerships of prostitutes? I thought that we said that this practice was a sin. We know what we are supposed to do with sinners. If the sinner repents, he is in the family with everyone else. But if he doesn't understand that he's in sin, that he is living in sin, we have to help him to see that and help him to make peace with God. This debate keeps going on. Today we are talking about marriage between homosexuals, tomorrow its going to be engagements between homosexuals and the debate just keeps going on. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, we've had two speeches for and two speeches against. All right, what is your point of order? Microphone 9. Yes, microphone 9.

PHILLIP AMERSON (South Indiana): Bishop Minnick, with all due respect, I believe there was only one speech against.

BISHOP MINNICK: No, I inadvertently began with a speech against rather than one for. Normally I do the other order, but we've had two on either side now.

AMERSON: I understood that you took the speech to refer as a speech against.

BISHOP MINNICK: No, I did not. No. All right, we're ready to vote now. We've had two speeches on either side. Yes, point of order right here.

CARL SCHENCK (Missouri East): Thank you for recognizing me, Bishop. I rise to request a ruling of the chair as to the appropriateness of this language having to do with professional ministerial conduct and matters related to property in the use in our local churches. I rise to ask the chair to rule whether or not such legislation is appropriately in the Social Principles.

BISHOP MINNICK: Now you'll have to, you'll have to clarify for me, I'm not...we're dealing with 2402. Now does...

CARL SCHENCK (Missouri East): That's correct, sir. It is an amendment by addition to...

BISHOP MINNICK: No, no, the committee recommends concurrence and that's what we're dealing with, 2402.

CARL SCHENCK: That's...am I not in order for the chair to rule whether or not language regarding the use of local church property and the professional conduct of clergy is appropriately in the Social Principles? It is, I believe, out of order in the Social Principles.

BISHOP MINNICK: I believe the body has a right to decide, and if there is then objection, you may appeal to the Judicial Council, so we will proceed with this, the vote now. It is item 2402. The committee recommends concurrence. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 553; no, 321] You have supported the committee. All right, back here, microphone 9.

C. JOSEPH SPRAGUE (West Ohio): I would like to appeal the ruling of the chair. I do not believe that there were two speeches against, there was only the one by the Rev. Sally Dyck, and none other.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, my notes indicated that there were two on either side. If you will support the chair, will you lift the hand. If you disagree with the chair...I am supported. Let's move to the next item.

PIKE: All right, bishop.

BISHOP MINNICK: Please, go ahead.

PIKE: With a great deal of....

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes, yes, over here. Microphone 1.

JEFFREY R. SPELMAN (Northern New Jersey): I would like to move that what we have just done be referred to the Judicial Council based on what this gentleman has just said--whether it's appropriate, the action we took, is appropriate for the Social Principles.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, it's in order. I guess we just....Is there anyone who would oppose that recommendation? We're ready to debate this if there's opposition to it. If you will refer this to the Judicial Council, please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 546; no, 363] You have appealed it to the Judicial Council. That's fine. All right.

PIKE: With a great deal of...

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes. Microphone 3.

DON MESSER (Rocky Mountain): Bishop Minnick, it would be helpful on these very controversial decisions if we would continue to use the voting machines on all issues. There's great pressure when we have to vote against you and your distinguished leadership by hand, and I think it would be better for all if we would continue in a wired form. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: I apologize for that, Don. I will do that henceforth, All right?

PIKE: All right, Bishop.

BISHOP MINNICK: Twenty-four, three.

PIKE: All right, with a great deal of relief, I come to my last petition on this particular subject (laughter). The white DCA, page 1213, just across the page, top left hand column, Petition 22301. It is calendar item on 583, right below where we were just talking, Calendar Item 2403. By a vote of 37 for, 18 against, 4 not voting, the committee recommended nonconcurrence.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, it is before you. The committee recommending non-concurrence. Is there someone who would speak for the...over here on the right. Microphone 7.

GREGORY R. DELL (Northern Illinois): As a person, a pastor for 25 years, who has celebrated covenant services with a half a dozen couples of the same gender, I rise for your support and understanding of faithfulness to those who search for a way to, in the faith, affirm their connection to Jesus Christ, to one another, and the community of faith. The persons with whom I have done such celebrations recognize by my counsel that they may not be married, not in the state of Illinois, and not in the eyes of the church. But that the love and commitment of persons who recognize the power of relationships lived in weakness and strength before the grace and judgment of Jesus Christ, needs to have room in the church. I urge you, sisters and brothers, even in the context of the action which we just took, to enable us who serve those who have in some ways been marginalized by the church, please enable us to continue a ministry of grace and accountability to these who search and celebrate love and who search for and celebrate their Christian, biblical faithfulness.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, that was a speech against...for. That was a speech for; now we need one against. That's right. All right. We need a speech against. All right, I'll do better here. We need one for; that was a speech against. So we need one for. Over here, microphone 5. Speech for.

JUNE P. GOLDMAN (Iowa): I would uphold the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence. I have a nephew who is gay. I have a niece who is lesbian. I have several friends who are gay and lesbian. We have discussed many issues that confront and concern the church. I have been in their homes and have been welcome; they are always welcome and have often been in my home. And as we have discussed this issue with love, this is what they have said to me. They have said, "I love my church, and so I beg you, June, to convey the message that I don't want my church to compromise itself just to accommodate my lifestyle." I think this is a tremendous sense of grace and understanding from persons who are gay and lesbian, who feel a deep love for their church and for all that it represents to them. And so they have asked not to let the church compromise itself simply to accommodate their choice of a lifestyle. I would vote in favor of the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, we need someone who would speak against nonconcurrence. Microphone 6. Someone had the card. Yes, microphone 6.

KABAMBA MUNYANGWE (North Shaba): (through an interpreter) Your Excellency, Bishop, members of the General Conference, I come in the humility of faith which we have in Jesus Christ. I don't think this problem can divide the body of the Christ that we are. I know that the problem of homosexuality is a social problem. And when a problem is a social problem, it becomes a problem of the entire society. We are a connectional church. This problem no longer concerns the church in the United States. It concerns everyone. That is why it is being submitted to this supreme body.

But I would like to draw the attention to all members of the conference; but the church, which is the body of Christ, has its principles, which must be respected. We love those who are homosexuals as human beings. We have great respect for them because they are people like we are. But we are against the practice of homosexuality because it is against human dignity. I don't want to go into biblical details because the Bible is not clear on this issue. I believe this is above all a cultural problem. To my knowledge, I know that in all the cultures of the world this practice has never been tolerated. If it has been practiced in some place, it was perhaps only occasionally.

I invite you, my brothers and my sisters, to continue working for the love of Christ to the gospel and to win souls to Christ. Let us stay away from all which can break Christ's heart. And finally, I would like to invite the church to continue to teach. I believe that this discussion of homosexuality can make us a failure in terms of education and teaching. That will show that we have failed as teachers. I believe that, starting with the parents who are responsible, it's necessary to...

BISHOP MINNICK: I'm sorry, your time is up.

My tally shows two speeches for nonconcurrence and one against nonconcurrence. Is there anyone else who would speak against nonconcurrence? Over here. All right, microphone 2.

GEORGE D. MCCLAIN (New York): The other night, actually Saturday night, I was a part of arranging for a presentation of a choral program by the Denver Area Gay and Lesbian Chorale called Harmony. About half the audience was members of the support community for that group and others were delegates and friends of the General Conference. Immediately following that event, a woman who had been in tears in the row right behind me came up to me and said, "I'm not a United Methodist, but I'm going to be. I grew up a Southern Baptist, and there's been no place for me and my partner in our church. Could you tell me where the nearest United Methodist Church is?" I would pray that this General Conference would allow those of us who feel called to reach out in this evangelical way to gay men and lesbians and allow them, anoint their relationships, to have this evangelical outreach and not prohibit this. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, we've had two speeches for and two speeches against the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence. The time has come for the vote. Question? Point of order? Yes? Microphone 9.

JACK PLOWMAN (Western Pennsylvania): Bishop, I rise to a point of order. It would seem to me that what is being proposed here in agenda item 71 is contrary to the Book of Discipline. I think it would be out of order for us to adopt a provision that is contrary to the Book of Discipline. Specifically, paragraph...

BISHOP MINNICK: This is a speech, and your point of order?

PLOWMAN: No, sir. I'm just explaining why I think it is out of order. If the chair doesn't want to hear why I think it is out of order, of course, I'll be seated.

BISHOP MINNICK: No, go ahead.

PLOWMAN: I would think the chair would want to hear why it's out of order.

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes, please. Please go ahead.

PLOWMAN: I think it is out of order, sir, because paragraph 402.1 of the Book of Discipline clearly states that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Paragraph 2623 of the Book of Discipline makes it a chargeable offense for a pastor to conduct himself in a manner incompatible with Christian teaching. So what we're being asked to do is to adopt a provision to change the Social Principles which would be contrary to Book of Discipline. That was my reason for asking the chair to rule that this is out of order.

BISHOP MINNICK: I guess I'll rule again, as I did before, that the body may do what it will, and then you may appeal it to the Judicial Council if this is your desire. There are two speeches that have been made for and against. We're ready to vote on 2403. The committee recommends nonconcurrence. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 598; no, 304] You have supported the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence.

DON PIKE: Bishop, that completes the report of the Committee of Church and Society, and I would yield to Paul Ervin.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. I have an urgent note here. "Last night we went three plus hours without a break. Would you help us take a brief break sometime soon?" [laughter] So we will take a ten minute break, please. Come back at nine o'clock.

S.T. KIMBROUGH: As you return to your seats, maybe it's appropriate for us to sing a "Kyrie Eleison," Lord, Have Mercy." And you can join in the three parts.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, let us be in order, please. Will you take your seats? Let us be in order, and I'll turn now to Paul Ervin for Discipleship.

PAUL ERVIN, JR. (North Georgia): Thank you, Bishop. We have two items that are in the same subject area. Calendar Item 756, which is in the blue book at page 234, is the first item. Page 234. Presenting the two petitions we will cover is Duane Sarazin from the Minnesota Conference. He chaired our Doctrine Committee. Duane.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Will you please, please take your places?

DUANE V. SARAZIN (Minnesota): Bishop Minnick, Christian friends of the General Conference, if you would please turn in your blue DCA to page 234, there you will find Calendar Item 756, and it is located in the third column on that page, down towards the bottom. In your white DCA, you will find the petition in its entirety on page 1298; 1298, the first column, down at the bottom. It is item 22408. That's 22408. And it is entitled, "Creation of Commitment Ceremonies for Same Sex Couples within The United Methodist Church."

Our committee voted nonconcurrence with this petition. There was spirited, but loving, conversation and debate within our legislative committee. It was a prayerful and soul-searching time. The primary reason for the vote of nonconcurrence was because our church has not changed its stand on the Social Principles, and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to ask our church, as this petition does, to create such a liturgy. The vote was 89 in favor of nonconcurrence, 13 against, and 3 abstentions.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, item 756 on page 234 is before you. The committee recommends nonconcurrence. Is there someone who would speak for, or are you ready to vote? Yes? Microphone 13. Or Microphone 8.

JOE KILPATRICK (North Georgia): I was simply going to make a motion that we suspend the rules and go ahead and vote.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. If you are ready to suspend the rules and vote, indicate that when the light appears.

You are ready to suspend the rules and vote. If you will support the committee...Did you...do you want to speak before we vote? If you will support the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence, please indicate so when the light appears. You have supported the committee. [Results: yes, 628; no, 190]

SARAZIN: Bishop, the next item is to be found in the blue DCA, page 387; 387.

BISHOP MINNICK: Page 387.

SARAZIN: In the middle column, up towards the top, it is Calendar Item 1682 and Petition 22212. Page 387, Calendar Item 1682, and it is entitled, "Service of Worship for the Celebration of Persons' Mutual Support and Commitment." You can find the petition in its entirety in the white DCA, page 1291. Page 1291.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, item...

SARAZIN: Excuse me. This service is essentially the same as the one just mentioned, some different wording. The committee voted nonconcurrence, 66 in favor of nonconcurrence, 15 against, and 5 abstentions.

BISHOP MINNICK: Item 1682, the recommendation for nonconcurrence is before you. Is there discussion? All right, microphone 5. Are you speaking for or against nonconcurrence?

BISHOP LINDSEY DAVIS (Kentucky): I move that we suspend the rules and vote.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. If you will suspend the rules and vote, indicate so when the light appears. All right, you are ready to suspend the rules. If you will support the committee's recommendation of nonconcurrence, please indicate so when the light appears. You have supported the committee. [Results: yes, 655; no, 203] All right, David Severe, General Judicial.

ALFRED JOHNSON (Eastern Pennsylvania): I chair the subcommittee on judicial matters in the legislative section on General and Judicial Administration. I call the attention to the body to Calendar Item 1997.

BISHOP MINNICK: What page?

JOHNSON: In the blue DCA, page 482. Calendar Item 1997, the blue DCA, page 482, entitled, "Chargeable Offenses."

BISHOP MINNICK: Page 482, item number...Give me the item number.

JOHNSON: Page 482, Calendar Item 1997; 1997.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, thank you.

JOHNSON: This item will deal with three petitions as listed. If you want the text for the petition, probably the best text will be found in the red book, page 1093; Petition 20722. Text can be found on page 1093, Petition 20722. The other petitions all have similar or the same language. These petitions ask the General Conference to amend paragraph 2623.1 of the Book of Discipline by adding to the list of chargeable offenses for pastors who participate in leadership of same- sex covenant services uniting gay and lesbian persons. Both the sub- group on judicial matters and the legislative section on General and Judicial Administration, by a majority vote of 44 for, 23 against, and 3 abstaining, voted nonconcurrence.

First, let me share with you briefly. We were privileged not only to have persons of great experience and expertise within our sub-group, but also the grateful presence of General Council of GCFA, and also a member of the Judicial Council, whose presence certainly embellished and informed our decisions. Secondly, we were guided by several principles, one of which was not to add to the Book of Discipline items that appear to be self-evident or already and adequately cared for under other paragraphs within the Book of Discipline. I must say we received at least ten requests to add to chargeable offenses of other matters.

Finally and especially, proceeding from this second point, we felt there is more than adequate paragraphs within the Book of Discipline, including actions taken yesterday on 71.F, actions taken today on the new 71C, the action taken just proceeding here also referring to 402.2, but specifically in paragraph 2623.1b, which states, "Ministerial practices that are declared by the United Methodist Church incompatible with Christian teaching," as well as 2623.1e, which declares "Disobedience to the order of the Discipline of The United Methodist Church" as a chargeable offense, adequately and effectively covers this particular petition. (unintelligible) ...discussions in the section. Therefore, we of majority opinion conclude that nonconcurrence is indeed the appropriate response to this petition. We urge your support for our decision.

BISHOP MINNICK: 1997 is before you; are you ready to vote? Do so when the light appears. You have supported the committee's recommendation of non-concurrence. [730 approved] All right, is that it? All right, we'll turn to ministry. Sandra Lutz.

SANDRA W. LUTZ (East Ohio): The petition we bring before you you will find in the blue DCA at the top of page 384. This is Calendar Item 1668. And I know, before you tell me that it appears on a Consent Calendar. It's been removed from there, however, and that reference appears on page 484. But since that doesn't give you any information, stay there on page 384. And this references paragraph 402.2, and you will find that the original petition in the red DCA, page 1048, that's 1048, referencing paragraph 402.2, and it's Petition 21158. And the subject is "Human Sexuality," and Cecile Adams will speak to you on that.

L. CECILE ADAMS (Detroit): Bishop, I believe I need to refer to another Consent Item in order to provide information for the body to have before the item which has been removed from the Consent Calendar can be considered.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right.

ADAMS: I would ask you to turn to Calendar Item 1013, which begins on page 328 in the blue book, Calendar Item 1013. And then I would ask you to turn in the red book to page 992, paragraph 304. In the subcommittee and in the legislative committee we considered the Ministry Study as the base for all of our decisions. In looking at all the petitions related to human sexuality and to the phrase, "fidelity in marriage and celibacy in singleness," we used the paragraph 304, which you find on page 992. Consent Calendar A04, item 1013, reflects the amendments which we made to paragraph 304 and the particular wording of 304.3. You will find on page 329 a continuation of 1013, and you will see that in 304.3 we added a footnote and the wording for the footnote. I do have an editorial change to make in the footnote. The phrase, "self-avowed practicing homosexual" is to be in quotation marks. The footnote describes self-avowed practicing homosexual.

When both the subcommittee and the legislative committee adopted paragraph 304 as you find it amended on page 329, all other references to the language which is included in 304 were put on a Consent Calendar and voted by both the subcommittee and the legislative committee as nonconcurrence. That is where we are. It is my understanding that the item removed from the Consent Calendar refers to the original language of a petition which you will find on 1047. And I understand there is someone, there are some ones who wish to speak to that.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, now we are on page 1047. Is this what you...?

ADAMS: Yes. If you want to follow the language which will come up in the discussion, you will want to look at page 1047 in the red book, which contains the language which will be referred to in the discussion. I would encourage you, though, to keep your hand also at page 992 so that you can begin to understand the differences we are dealing with.

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes. Point of Order. Microphone 7.

PHILIP R. GRANGER (North Indiana): Bishop, the petition that technically is in front of us deals with 402.2. I would like a ruling from the chair. I believe that section of the Discipline has been superseded by the new paragraph 304. Any action that we take tonight on 402.2, will that be translated into paragraph 304?

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. I do not believe so. We have already adopted the Ministry Study.

GRANGER: Excuse me, Bishop. I was taking care of the clerical secretary's office. Would you repeat, please?

BISHOP MINNICK: I said I do not believe so, inasmuch as we have already adopted the Ministry Study.

GRANGER: Then, Bishop, would this item be out of order for this evening?

ADAMS: Bishop, in the action that was taken by placing 1013 on the Consent Calendar and the approval of that Consent Calendar, all that is in 402.2 is found now in 304.3.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. I think then we are in order, are we not? I would think that we are in order.

GRANGER: Bishop, does that mean that we're voting a potential amendment to 304?

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes. Yes, we are.

GRANGER: Thank you.

ADAMS: We have some people who are asking for recognition.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Microphone 1.

LARRY GOODPASTOR (Mississippi): We lifted this particular petition because we felt it was important to add the words, "proven with a clear and convincing evidence," which you will find in that line on page 1048 in the red DCA. As the chair of the Board of Ordained Ministry, I have discovered over the last four years the importance of proceeding cautiously and not engaging or relying in hearsay evidence. We have also been told and instructed by the Judicial Council and others to provide definitions. The definition that is in this particular petition that is not in the new paragraph is the section, "proven with clear and convincing evidence." This particular phrase would certainly enhance and strengthen and give to our boards and others some better guidelines for working out the decisions that we have to make. It is up to each board to determine whether the evidence is clear and convincing, but it will help us to provide the definition for the practicing part of that phrase.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. That is a speech for. Is there a speech against. Right here. Microphone 3.

GERALD O. TRIGG (Rocky Mountain Conference): Are we still in the process, Bishop, and I need to ask, of perfecting even the wording of this 402 recommendation? And is a motion to perfect in order?

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes, it is in order, a motion to perfect.

TRIGG: Then I would move that in the preliminary sentence there, that states, "Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching" as the introduction, that we delete the word Christian and substitute the word Scriptural. If I have a second, I'll speak to that. All right. Is there a second? It is seconded.

GERALD TRIGG: I think if we made this move we would discover a statement that would be in harmony with our doctrinal position in "Our Theological Task," which lifts the primacy of Scripture. It would also accurately acknowledge, that as the 1992 study on homosexuality acknowledges, that whenever the practice of homosexuality is mentioned in Scriptures, it's viewed negatively. But, on the positive side, the statement would accurately acknowledge that not all Christians teach the condemnation of homosexuality. Witness the votes that we have been taking here. The change of wording, milder though it is, would be very important. We would cease to be so judgmental regarding those Christians who disagree on the subject and would more accurately, honestly suggest where we are as a church. And because it is more accurate and more compassionate, it would enable us, in the words of the bishops' statements to the General Conference, express a new spirit of honesty and openness and enable us to speak the truth as we discern it in love.

BISHOP MINNICK, JR.: All right. Thank you. The amendment is before you. That is a speech for it. Is there a speech against it? Yes? Microphone 9.

SHAWN HARTMAN (Central Pennsylvania): First, I have a question on "proven with clear and convincing evidence." Who would present that evidence, and would it be the Board of Ordained Ministry that would then...

BISHOP MINNICK, JR.: We are not on that right now. We're on the substitute, the amendment to substitute the word "Scriptural" for the word "Christian." That's all we're talking about right now.

HARTMAN: Would the answer to the question, then, make for, or against, the amendment?

BISHOP MINNICK, JR.: Well, we may come back to that later, but right now it's for the substitute of the word if you want to speak about that. All right, microphone 9. This will be a speech against.

RONALD BRETSCH (North Central New York): I would speak against the motion to substitute. Although I am no theologian, I do think that there is a difference between "scriptural" and "Christian." For me as a Christian, the Old Testament is included in my theology, but it is made more complete by the gospels in the New Testament. I would think that we could all agree on that more than we could on what is Christian. Christian teaching has taken place during the past 1,996 years, and on that we do disagree. I would think that the statement would be more in touch with reality of where we are as a denomination if the word "Christian" were retained instead of "scripture."

BISHOP MINNICK, JR.: All right. Is there a speech for? I saw a card...All right. Over here. Microphone 5.

AL GWINN (Kentucky): Moving suspension of Rule 36 in order that we can vote on all that's before us.

BISHOP MINNICK, JR.: All right. Is there a second to it? If you will suspend the rules so that we can vote on all that's before us, will you vote when the light appears? All right, you're ready to vote. Yes, please, microphone 7.

JOY MOORE (West Michigan): Is it in order that the question that the young man asked, as we entered this amendment, be answered? I think I might be able to address it for him.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Let's hear the question, again. Microphone 9.

SHAWN HARTMAN (Central Pennsylvania): My question is, who would present the evidence that would be needed, and also is it the Board of Ordained Ministry that will then make final decision?

MOORE: I was on the legislative committee. I believe we thought that we were taking care of the issue without the line, "clear and convincing evidence." The Council of Bishops and the Board of Higher Ed have given counsel that the addition of the phrase, "proven by clear and convincing evidence" allows for the evidence to be used and sets the standard which is consistent with the standard for evidence in trial procedures. Paragraph 2626, "the burden of proof for a vote to convict shall be clear and convincing evidence. As in any complaint, it is up to the Board of Ordained Ministry to determine if the evidence presented is clear and convincing on a case-by-case-basis." Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Thank you, and I believe now we're ready to vote. We're voting first on the amendment to substitute the word "scriptural" for the word "Christian." Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 339; no, 564] You have not approved that amendment. Now we come to the substitution. Will you please repeat now what it is you'd like for us to substitute?

ADAMS: I'd like to ask Larry Goodpastor who moved that, or who brought that before us, to speak to that, please.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Larry Goodpastor, microphone 1.

LARRY GOODPASTOR (Mississippi): I'm not sure I moved anything. We're just responding to the petition that is before us. In essence, what this particular petition would do would be to add to what we have already passed on the Consent Calendar: the phrase, "or prove with a clear and convincing evidence."

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. That's a motion to insert that in 304. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 667; no, 214] All right, you have approved that substitution. And now, we're ready to vote on the entire matter before us. Yes, you please get to speak.

ADAMS: Bishop, the amendment, or the substitution has been approved. The subcommittee felt very strongly that the language that was covered in the petitions as presented was sufficient.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Will you please vote, now when the light appears? Yes? There. Microphone 3.

BECKY HAASE (California-Pacific): Bishop, this is extremely confusing, and again, we have a situation where we have a motion, as I understand it, a motion of nonconcurrence and we have an amendment. And I just would like clarification, if we vote yes, we are supporting the motion, the recommendation of nonconcurrence? And not the amendment. Is that correct?

BISHOP MINNICK: Is this what you're asking?

ADAMS: It is my understanding that voting yes would be a vote for paragraph 304.3 as amended.

BISHOP MINNICK: No, no that--it would be the opposite way to that.

ADAMS: It would be to support the recommendation of the committee, then?

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes, yes. If you vote yes, you'll be voting nonconcurrence. If you vote no, you'll be voting for it as amended. Yes? Back at microphone 14.

MARY ANN GALLOWAY (West Ohio): I'd like to know exactly what I'm voting on, please.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Will you please?

ADAMS: It is my understanding that if you vote yes, you vote nonconcurrence with Consent Calendar Item 1668, and you vote concurrence for Calendar Item 1013 as amended and printed on pages 328 and 329. If you vote no, you are voting for paragraph 304 as amended with the words, "with clear and convincing evidence."

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, microphone 12. Microphone 12, please. Ended up going to 7 instead of 12, All right.

VERGIL L. DAUGHTERY (South Georgia): Mr. Chairman,...I am completely confused. I move to separate the question in order that we might know exactly what we're voting on.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, is there any objection to separating the question? All right, please state the first part.

ADAMS: I need some help from you, bishop, at this point because I'm not sure what separating the question does.

BISHOP MINNICK: Well, in section...., you have two items before us. Give us the first.

ADAMS: The first would be to support the recommendation of the committee in terms of nonconcurrence with Calendar Item 1668. Is that right?

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Let's vote on that. Nonconcurrence with item 1668 is the recommendation of the committee. Please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 566; no, 193] All right, you have supported nonconcurrence. What is the second item there now?

ADAMS: The second item would be on Consent Calendar A04 to support concurrence as amended on pages 328 and 329 in the blue DCA.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, that's before you. Please vote when the light appears. Microphone 6.

JAMES A. HARNISH (Florida): We still are not sure on which language we're reading. Could you have the secretary read to us the, what it is that we're voting on?

BISHOP MINNICK: Please, yes. All right. Do you have that? Do we need to...do you have...Is there a motion from Larry Goodpastor? This is what she is asking for. Larry, microphone 1. Microphone 1.

LARRY GOODPASTOR: The paragraph 304.2 has been amended... point 3 has been amended by our action earlier to insert the words "or prove with a clear and convincing evidence" after the word self-avowed, so that it would read "self-avowed or to prove with a clear and convincing evidence practicing." That's the motion, that's the action that we took a few moments ago.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. All right, there was a question over here, I believe. Microphone...All right. This is before you then as amended. Yes, microphone...let me go back to microphone 8, if you don't mind.

SUSAN W. RUACH (South Indiana): Am I not correct in thinking that the item on page 329, numbered, Calendar Item 1013 on the Consent Calendar, was already voted on and therefore we can't amend it without reconsideration. Is that correct?

ADAMS: That is my understanding.

RUACH: So then what we did was amend a paragraph in connection with the other, with that other item, which we have just nonconcurred with. So it seems to me we finished it. (applause)

BISHOP MINNICK: Yes, please, microphone 5.

JIM HOLSINGER (Kentucky): Bishop, we are in a position that is extremely difficult, as we all know. The issue here is that 304 and 402, one is replacing the other due to the fact of the ministerial study. And so we have entered 402.2 on the calendar lifted item, but you ruled at the beginning when we asked the, when the question was asked, that that would amend 304.2 or 3, whichever one it is. And the result of that is that we have amended by our action of 75 to 25, 304, and now we need to simply vote to concur or nonconcur with that final motion.

BISHOP MINNICK: You're point is well taken. We will vote on the item as amended. All right? Will you vote when the light appears? Yes? I guess...All right, come on. Microphone 3.

BECKY HAASE (California Pacific): I think the point was made, Bishop, that the calendar item that has been amended had previously been voted on. And it would seem that we would need a motion to reconsider, reconsider that item if we're going to amend it. I'm just asking what is the calendar item we are now voting on, and hasn't it already been voted on?

ADAMS: The calendar item, which would be amended by your action, would be 1013 on pages 328 and 329. That was approved as a part of Consent Calendar A04 in action yesterday, I believe.

BISHOP MINNICK: One moment. I believe we're at the point where the whole matter is before us for our decision as a body, and the point of, let's see the point of order here, yes...microphone 4.

DON W. MENDENHALL (Iowa): I would move to table for the reason to allow the committee to re-evaluate its presentation of these items and to confer with the presiding officer when that is completed and have it be the first item on tomorrow's agenda.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. The motion to table is before you. It is not debatable. If you will table, will you lift, will you vote when the light appears? [Results: yes, 587; no, 334] And you have voted to table and the committee will come back tomorrow. All right, Cashar Evans. Yes, point of order, over here.

EARL RENSHAW (Southern Illinois): Does not a tabling have to be two- thirds? That was 63.7%.

BISHOP MINNICK: No, it does not have to be two-thirds, just a majority. All right, Cashar Evans. Yes, microphone 13.

WILLIAM T. MCCLENDON (South Carolina): Bishop, I would respectfully submit that that motion to table was out of order because it should have been a motion to postpone to a definite time. And perhaps the delegates weren't aware.

BISHOP MINNICK: The motion may be made at any time to take it from the table.

MCCLENDON: I move to take it from the table.

BISHOP MINNICK: I believe it's not in order at this moment. (laughter) All right, we'll turn to brother Cashar Evans here.

CASHAR EVANS (North Carolina): Calendar Item 18. Let's start again. Calendar Item 1989, page 479 of the blue book.

BISHOP MINNICK: 479, item 1989.

EVANS: It refers to a petition on page 1313 in the white book. That Petition 22240. It's in the first column. It's the second one down.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right.

EVANS: The action of the committee voted not to change the paragraph by a vote of 70,23, and 0; concurrence. There is a minority report, Bishop Minnick.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Let us, is there anything you want to say further about the majority report?

EVANS: No, Sir.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, let's go to the minority report. Frank Trotter.

FRANK TROTTER (Baltimore-Washington): Thank you, Bishop. Tonight sort of reminds me of that joke about the longest conversation in recorded history in the Guinness Book of World Records. It lasted ten days and thirteen hours and forty-six minutes, that happened when an Amway salesman rang the doorbell of a Jehovah's Witness. I think, tonight, all of us are Amway salesmen and Jehovah's Witnesses. I want to apologize to you for not wearing a tie. I thought I was going to talk to you tomorrow morning. For those of you out there from Holston Conference who know my mother, please don't tell her I look like this.

Yesterday we reaffirmed our Social Principles on homosexuality by a vote of 60% to 40%. Sixty percent thought we should stay where we are; forty percent believe we should change. Yet, I would guess that most of us will go home knowing that this issue is not laid to rest. What do you do when a family disagrees about serious issues? What do you do when members feel strongly and fervently and on opposite sides of the fence? When I was assigned to the Financial and Administration Legislative Committee, we began to debate 906.12, and we had strongly different opinions about whether the language should stay or be deleted. And we began to talk with one another. We had an excellent conversation, much as Church and Society did on abortion. There were no hard feelings, there were no angry words. There was honest sharing. And finally we looked around and found a substitute motion that was written by the Wisconsin Conference. You have it in front of you tonight as the minority report. These words are from the Wisconsin Conference. And those of us tried to substitute these words to become the majority report. When we took a vote, low and behold, the vote of substitution was 48 to 45. We were only three votes apart within the Financial Administration [legislative committee].

What do you do when we're that close? We feel, in the minority, that the words before you do not violate the Social Principles which we have reaffirmed. We do believe that these words begin to build a bridge. That is what we have been saying that we are here to do: to build a bridge between those of us on different sides of strong issues. This morning Bishop Bolton began the first words of the discussion following our vote yesterday. And whether you agree with what he said or not, he took us a step farther in the discussion. And bravely he reached out and said words of apology to a colleague whom he felt he had offended, in front of God and everybody. If a bishop can build a bridge, cannot we build a bridge as well? And start to talk with one another, even while reaffirming that our Social Principles are in the same place. I encourage you to join us in building a bridge over a very hard issue. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: The minority report is before you. Is there discussion? Amendments? Yes, microphone 5.

LINDSEY DAVIS (Kentucky): I'd like to speak against the minority report.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right.

DAVIS: There's no present limit, I believe, on dialogue or study or research on homosexuality within our church. In fact, there's much material excellently produced by the Church today on human sexuality. Certainly, this General Conference has had much dialogue on the subject. The addition proposed by the minority proposal is unnecessary, in my view; it's unnecessary verbiage which we do not need to add to the Discipline. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Is there any for? Microphone 10.

RAELYNN SCHLIEF BEVERIDGE (West Ohio): Easter Sunday I received word that the daughter-in-law of one my,- and I'm speaking for the minority report, the daughter-in-law of one my elderly members committed suicide. She was caught between a lesbian daughter who was wanting acceptance of her lifestyle, and her husband, who held to some very firm Christian understandings of that being an unacceptable lifestyle. I think it's time that the Church offered a word of grace and even put money toward some kind of educational resources and studies that would help us build bridges and offer one another a hand of reconciling ministry where we can learn and listen, and so that those of us who hold so fast to our Christian teachings, find ways to reach out to loved ones, so that persons caught in the middle, innocently, don't take their own lives.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, is there a speech against? I see a card in the back. Microphone 13.

EWING WERLEIN JR (Texas): Bishop, I would speak in favor of the resolution that came from the committee and against the substitution for the minority report. This is not just a matter of adding language to permit discussion. I quite agree with the earlier speaker, that there's no limitation and no restriction upon our discussions in the church. The printed part of 907.12 is not before you in the blue DCA, but if you turn to your Discipline, you'll find that the minority report has a much more significant effect upon this paragraph. It is in the words that it drops, the words that it omits, and those words are the prohibition upon giving United Methodist funds "to any gay caucus or group or otherwise use such funds." Those are the words that are significant and are significantly omitted from the minority report. I believe the church should not be prepared to retract its statement in view of our Social Principles, and I would urge defeat of the minority report.

BISHOP MINNICK: We've had two speeches against, and one for. Does anyone else want to speak for it? Microphone 8.

THOMAS R. BOLLER (Yellowstone): Bishop, my friends, this church has nurtured and loved me and made me who I am. This church, with its stands, has also destroyed my family. My step-father was a United Methodist clergy person, now deceased. His birth son, my step-brother, went to his father in the latter years of his father's life, and told him that he was gay. His father walked out of the room and never spoke to him again. His father was being faithful to the position that the church that he served told him he should have, and let his son go. I serve that same church as a clergy person, and have a different position. I respect his right to stand where he stood. I trust you'll respect my right where I stand. We are on that divide of not being able to agree on the issue. But as United Methodists, our theology is based on the quadrilateral: Scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. And my experience tells me that this is a destructive way to treat families and to treat individuals. My reason tells me that if we do not keep talking, if we do not keep studying, if we do not keep learning, and providing ourselves resources to do just that, we will surely divide families again and again and again.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right, we've had two speeches for and two against. We'll turn now to the representative of the minority report. Question? Yes. Microphone 9.

TOM WATSON (Nebraska): I have a question that is kind of important to me before I vote on this. In the reading of the minority report, after the words, "the acceptance of homosexuality" there are three dots. The way I read that, that doesn't omit language. The language that would normally be in there is still contained. Is that correct?

FRANK TROTTER (Baltimore-Washington): That is correct.

WATSON: All right. The brother that talked before indicated that that language was omitted, and that substantially changes how this minority report affects this.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. You may speak.

TROTTER: Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. If I really had my honest way, I would delete the language of 906.12 altogether. And when we had our first vote in the sub-subcommittee, the vote was 14 to 12; it was that close. But, then we begin to talk about how can we compromise. What is a reasonable compromise between the 60 percent and the 40 percent? We think we present you with a reasonable compromise as crafted by the Wisconsin Conference. We believe it protects the Social Principles as reaffirmed by the General Conference, and we believe it allows for discussion which families ought to do. I encourage you to build the bridge. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. The minority report is before you. Yes? Microphone 13.

EWING WERLEIN, JR. (Texas): Bishop, there's been a misstatement made in the response to previous question, I believe. If you look at page 479, in the minority report, the three dots follow the words, "to promote the acceptance of homosexuality" then the three dots to indicate that words are not being omitted. If you look at section 907 of the Discipline, paragraph 12, I beg your pardon, 906, I said the wrong paragraph. At 906, the language reads, "that the Council shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission or council shall give United Methodist funds." Then it says, "to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds," and then it picks up again "to promote the acceptance of homosexuality." Thus, as you can see, on page 479 in the minority report, the words...there should be the showing of the omission of those words between the words "funds" in line 5 and the words, "to promote". That's where those words have been dropped, and those words were dropped also in the Wisconsin Conference delegation resolution that this minority group picked up. And, I believe that my statement was quite accurate, Bishop, and fellow delegates.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Do you want to-. Yes, please.

TROTTER: Help me out, Ewing. Tell me the page where the Wisconsin. I came up without my books. Help me out, Ewing. Where is that? Where is the.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right.

TROTTER: Is it on page 368 of the red book? Is that where it is, Shawn? I want it to appear, I'm sorry that I don't have my book here, I want it to appear, Ewing, as the Wisconsin recommendation is, we used the exactly the Wisconsin recommendation as our substitute motion. And, the language should reflect whatever it is the Wisconsin Delegation has assimilated. And, that is our minority report.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. The minority report is-. Is it a point of order? Yes. Go to microphone 9.

RHONDA V. COLBY (Virginia): Can you have the brother help us by reading to us the minority report, just the whole paragraph. It is short, and that would be helpful.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Would you do that please? Read the minority report so that they may hear it in its entirety.

TROTTER: I want to apologize for the confusion. This is not intentional and I'm not trying to hide any agenda. I am really, really not.

BISHOP MINNICK: Just read, if you will, read the minority report on which we are voting here.

TROTTER: "The Council shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission or council shall give United Methodist funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality." And I don't have the reference to where the Wisconsin document is. 368?

BISHOP MINNICK: Microphone 13. Brother Werlein, do you have that to read?

WERLEIN: Yes, Bishop, I have that now. It's in your red DCA, page 368 on the right hand column, at the bottom. And you'll notice

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. He has it now.

WERLEIN: And, you'll notice, the fund, the words are stricken, which read, "to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds." That's the critical point that I have tried to make and which is represented in the Wisconsin Resolution.

TROTTER: Ewing is correct.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Will you read it as it should be heard and voted on.

TROTTER: Ewing, I apologize to you for the misunderstanding there. "The Council shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission or council shall give United Methodist funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality." And then, the language continues, "This restriction shall not limit the Church's ministry in response to the HIV epidemic, nor shall this restriction limit the Church's research, study, and discussion of any issues of human sexuality."

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. That report is before you. Will you please vote when the light appears. [Results: yes, 395; no, 497]. So, we'll vote now on the committee recommendation for concurrence, Item 1989. Please vote when the light appears. You have supported the committee's recommendation for concurrence. All right. Thank you, Brother Cashar. We'll turn now to the Committee on Presiding Offices. Brother Rex Bevins.

REX BEVINS: Bishop and members of the conference, the presiding officers for Friday, April 26th are as follows: Friday morning - Bishop Dan Solomon of the Oklahoma area; Friday afternoon, Bishop Judith Craig of the Ohio West area; Friday evening, Bishop Woodrow Hearn of the Houston area.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Committee on Agenda and Calendar report, Sarah Miller.

SARAH S. MILLER: Thank you, Bishop. Tomorrow we will again talk about homosexuality. We'll deal with the budget. We'll talk about Local Church calender items, and all remaining calendar items. Let me say a word about adjournment tomorrow. We need to vacate this convention center by 1:00 A.M. Saturday morning, and that means we need to have everything out, computers and everything out. So, our production people tell us we really need to adjourn by 10, so they can unhook all the equipment and get it out. Now we still have a great deal to do. I know some of you are anxious about it. I feel duty-bound to let you know that there is a growing movement to refer any unfinished business to the Wyoming Conference. (laughter) It's fine with us. But, if you have a problem with it, you may want to take on Friday's agenda with an even greater urgency. Thank you.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Thank you. Brother David Severe needs to bring us one short additional item tonight.

DAVID SEVERE (Oklahoma): Thank you, Bishop. Members of the Conference, for a couple, three days there have been some people waiting very anxiously for a piece of legislation that our committee dealt with. It is found in the white book, page 1338. It is a resolution proclaiming a "Quadrennium of the Worker." It passed our committee after we took the dollars out of it. It had originally asked for some dollars. We said that we did not think that that was possible, and they worked that up so that they could still have the emphasis but there would be no conference, no church dollars, would go into that. However, we made the error of not getting that dollar stricken, so it did not appear on the Consent Calendar, though it passed our legislative committee overwhelmingly - 74 for, 4 against and 2 abstentions. I would like to bring that to you and my recommendation would be that we hear what we have done, that we remove that dollar by our vote to accept this. There are no dollars attached to it. And I would move its adoption. It's in concurrence with the committee.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Are you ready to vote on this? I believe you are.

SEVERE: Would you like to have those numbers again? It is Calendar Item 1995. page 480, excuse me; page 480 in the DCA. Calendar Item 1995, Petition 22709. It's found on page 1338 of the DCA number 2, the white book. It was voted concurrence, and as I stated, we failed just as a clerical error to take the dollar sign off, and therefore the clerk could do nothing but put it on the calendar. It would have appeared a day or two ago on the Consent Calendar without that problem. It's been on the calendar item, and we haven't been able to get to the floor to bring it to you.

BISHOP MINNICK: All right. Are you ready to vote on this? If you will approve it, indicate when the light appears. [764 approved] You have approved it.

SEVERE: Thank you very much.

BISHOP MINNICK: Now, let me recognize Pete Weaver for a very important announcement. Special privilege. Yes, microphone 9.

PETER WEAVER (Western Penn.): Thank you, Bishop. As we have been debating, babies have been born. And as someone said, every baby who is born comes with a promise that God is not yet discouraged with us. And so I would like the General Conference to join the Western Pennsylvania delegation in congratulating Bishop George and Carolyn Bashore on the birth of their grandson late this afternoon: Jonathan Hagge.

BISHOP MINNICK: Thank you for that. [applause] I recognize the secretary for announcements.

CAROLYN MARSHALL: The secretaries of the legislative committees are invited to meet tomorrow morning at 7:30 a.m. in room C204. Then to simply make an announcement for the several of you who have sent up notes about there not having been enough water today, I want to explain just for your understanding that more water was ordered than was delivered, and we were informed by the caterer that there was no way that a group of this size would consume as much water as we had ordered, and so the caterer won. We are promising you that will be increased significantly tomorrow, and think we have that all taken care of at this point. Ever onward to perfection. One final note. It's been mentioned several times today, but the Interjurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy will meet tonight immediately following the adjournment of this meeting in room A209. A209 for the Interjurisdictional Committee on Episcapacy.

BISHOP MINNICK: Well, I felt so good when Rex Bevins asked me to preside tonight, but it was not nearly as much fun as I thought it was going to be. [laughter] I can see, though, that you had a wonderful time. But again, I'm retiring in four months, four days, one hour, and 40 minutes. [laughter] So for everything that's in my heart and mind, stand and join me in singing "Praise God From Whom All Blessing Flow."

Go in the peace of Christ; go with it each one of you. Amen.

General Conference Webmaster: Susan Brumbaugh
PETS Creator: John Brawn