|
Resolutions I. Referred to Rules Committee 1 - A Resolution on Resolutions Whereas, there is currently no policy to provide guidance on the length of time for which resolutions adopted by the Virginia Annual Conference shall be considered valid; Whereas, currently only the ‘resolved’ portion of an adopted resolution is included in the Conference Journal, thereby omitting the introductory material and any documentation which often contain important information; Whereas, there is currently no policy to provide guidance on keeping track of such resolutions and having them easily accessible; Whereas, the 2000 General Conference of The United Methodist Church approved a rule under which its resolutions “shall be considered official expressions of The United Methodist Church for eight years following their adoption, after which time they shall be deemed to have expired unless readopted,” and Whereas, the General Conference of The United Methodist Church has provided for all of its currently valid resolutions to be publically available in their entirety in the form of The Book of Resolutions of the United Methodist Church; Now, be it hereby resolved that this Annual Conference: 1. Endorses as a policy that all resolutions adopted by the Virginia Annual Conference shall be considered official expressions of the Conference for a period of eight years following their adoption, unless rescinded or superseded, after which they shall be deemed as expired unless readopted. 2. Directs that a “Resolutions” page be created on the Conference website <www.vaumc.org> on which all currently valid resolutions adopted by the Virginia Annual Conference shall be posted in their entirety, including introductory material and supporting documentation. John Copenhaver, Hunter Mabry, Elaine Williamson and Rob Vaughn End Note The Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church 2004 (Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2004), 5. II. Referred to the Board of Church and Society 2 - Palestinian Resolution
The situation in the Middle East continues to consume our attention and concern. As Christians, the situation in the Holy Land of our Lord Jesus Christ is particularly close to our heart and faith. 2008 will mark the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel. While we share with Israelis in their jubilation, we are disturbed that Palestinians still have no nation to call home. We understand there are two sides in every conflict. Unfortunately we feel at present only one side is being heard in our homes and our churches. Since the days of John Wesley, United Methodists have long spoken out for people whose voices have not been heard. Whereas there is neither a concise, unbiased education program outlining the plight of the Palestinians nor any guidelines as to how United Methodists in the Virginia Conference may become actively involved in their issue: Whereas the members of United Methodist congregations across the Commonwealth of Virginia look to this august body to set a course for the future involvement of this Conference over the plight of the Palestinians: Be it resolved that the Bishop of the Virginia Conference be requested to form a Palestinian Task Force for one year, funded as an immerging ministry with the responsibility to bring to the 2007 Annual Conference the following items for information and/or approval: Create and introduce a concise presentation for use in churches concerning the ongoing plight of Palestinians Create and present for approval a program outlining ways in which this Conference can actively support Palestinians and Israelis to alleviate the human suffering caused by the aforementioned parties’ ongoing conflict Create and present for approval a resolution outlining the Virginia Annual Conference’s stand on the Palestinian right to become a nation and reparation for land acquired since 1948 Eric Anderson, C. Wesley Astin, Jr., Becky Breeding, Becky Cloud, Christine Cole, Amy Cox, Gary Milstead, Joan Wasserott 3 - Supporting Human Rights and Peace in the Middle East Whereas, Israel is nearly the only long-standing democracy among its neighbors in the Middle East; and Whereas, both the president of Iran and the new Hamas government of the Palestinians have called for the destruction of Israel; and Whereas, some church groups have selectively advocated divestment of firms doing business with Israel while ignoring severe human rights abuses by the governments of Israel’s neighbors; and Whereas, selective attention to Israel’s mistakes will not create peace in the Middle East; Therefore be it resolved that we reject punitive and selective actions against Israel; that we urge attention to all human rights abuses in the Middle East; and we offer prayerful support for all persons working for justice, democracy, religious freedom and human rights among every people in that region. Mark Tooley 4 - Resolution Urging Removal of United Methodist Church Support for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) Whereas the members of the United Methodist Church, like the rest of American Society, have a wide range of views on the difficult matter of abortion; Whereas RCRC goes significantly beyond what many self-described "pro-choice" people believe, opposing parental notification requirements for abortions performed on minor girls, supporting taxpayer funding of medically unnecessary abortions, and denouncing legal protections for health care professionals who do not want to be forced to participate in abortions; Whereas the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church "call for the end of" most instances of "partial-birth" abortions (Paragraph 161J) while RCRC publicly condemned a federal bill to ban the practice (11/5/2003 RCRC press release); Whereas the United Methodist Social Principles affirm "the sanctity of unborn human life" (Paragraph 161J), consistent with the testimony of Scripture (for example, Psalm 139:14-15, Luke 1:41-44) and historic Christian teaching, while RCRC does not make the same affirmation; Whereas criticisms by RCRC officials of opposition to extramarital sex and homosexual practice raise concerns that affiliation with RCRC may compromise our denomination's standards on marriage and sexuality; Whereas other "mainline" denominations with similar positions on abortion to that of the United Methodist Church have either never associated with RCRC (e.g., the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Disciples of Christ), or have severed past ties with RCRC (American Baptist Churches USA and the Northern Province of the Moravian Church); Whereas in a January 24, 2005 sermon, Bishop Timothy Whitaker of the Florida Area of the United Methodist Church lamented how during the 2004 General Conference, time was not allotted for "much of a debate" about our denomination's participation in RCRC; Be it therefore resolved that the Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church hereby charges its Conference Secretary, using the entire rationale stated above, to petition, in a timely and appropriate manner, the 2008 General Conference to withdraw immediately our denomination's support for and in participation in RCRC. Kelly S. Bose 5- Methodist Resolution Supporting Democracy and Peace in the Middle East Whereas Israel is nearly the only long-standing democracy among its neighbors in the Middle East; and Whereas, both the president of Iran and the new Hamas government of the Palestinians have called for the destruction of Israel; and Whereas, some church groups have selectively advocated divestment of firms doing business with Israel while ignoring severe human rights abuses by the governments of Israel’s neighbors; Therefore let it be resolved that we reject punitive and selective actions against Israel; that we urge attention to all human rights abuses in the Middle East; and we offer prayerful support for all persons working for justice, democracy, religious freedom and human rights among every people in that region. Kelly S. Bose 6- Affirming Laws Defending Marriage Whereas, the United Methodist Social Principles (paragraph 161C) declare: "We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," and Whereas, marriage is a divinely ordained institution that contributes to social harmony and the protection of children, and Whereas, the Scriptures describe marriage between man and woman as symbolizing the love and faithfulness between God and His people, and Whereas, marriage has been understood across cultures and across the centuries as the faithful union between man and woman, Therefore let it be resolved that we affirm the United Methodist stance on marriage and support laws in our state that protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Kelly S. Bose 7 - Support the proposed “marriage” amendment to the Constitution of Virginia Whereas, The United Methodist Church Social Principles declares: “We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” 1 and Whereas, marriage is ordained by God, according to both the Old and New Testaments, 2,3,4,5 and Whereas, some judges in the United States are mandating legal recognition for same sex marriages, by rejecting the will of the people and state legislatures when it comes to defining marriage. 6 And Whereas, “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers the practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God’s grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community,” 7, 8 and Whereas, “ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by United Methodist ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches,” 9 and Whereas, the proposed amendment would not remove protections from domestic violence or void contracts between any two persons, these arguments have consistently been dismissed by courts in several states, 10,11 and Whereas, the proposed amendment was debated in the Senate and House committees last year and then again on the floors of both legislative chambers. There has been the necessary intervening election of the entire House of Delegates and again this year the bill was considered by both the House and Senate and passed with overwhelming, bipartisan support, 12 and Whereas, the proposed amendment was introduced in the 2005 General Assembly of Virginia. It takes nearly two years to get an amendment on the ballot upon which the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia can vote, thus rebutting the argument that the proposed amendment has been rushed; therefore be it 13 Resolved, that the Virginia United Methodist Conference formally and actively support the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Virginia: Amend Article I of the Constitution of Virginia by adding a section numbered 15-A as follows: Resolve that this Resolution and the results of the voting by the 2006 Annual Conference be published in The Virginia United Methodist Advocate and also placed on the VaLaityNet and VaClergyNet in a timely manner, in order that the members of the conference will be aware of the decision of the Annual Conference before November 7, 2006. Reid P. Broce References 161(C) equal and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens to take effect on May 17, 2004. On January 20, 2006 Baltimore Maryland, Circuit Court, Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled that a 1973 statue that defines marriage as between a man and woman violates the state constitu-tion. In August 2004, King County, Washington, Superior Court Judge William Downing ruled that the state constitution guarantees basic rights to lesbians and gay people -- and that those rights are violated by the state law prohibiting gay marriage. Nineteen states of the United States of America have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages. Ordination, Page 197, Paragraph 304.3. Administration, Page 719 Chargeable Offenses and the Statute of Limitations, Paragraph 2702.1. A Bishop, clergy member of an annual conference, local pastor, clergy on honorable or administrative location or diaconal minister may be tried when charged with one or more of the following offenses: (b) practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teaching including but not limited to: being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or perform the work of the ministry; (Judicial Council Decisions 702, 982, 984, 985) 10 Forum for Equality PAC v. Honorable W. Fox McKelthen, Case no. 04-CA-2477, Supreme Court of Louisiana January 2005. Granholm v. City of Kalamazoo, lngham County Circuit Court September 27, 2005. Ohio v. Burk, Case no. 86162 OH Ct. of Appeals December 2005. Ohio v. Carswell, Case No. CA2005-04-047 OH Ct. of Appeals December 2005. 11 On April 21, 2004, the General Assembly of Virginia approved an amendment to the Code of Virginia section number 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex, effective July I, 2004. 12 House Joint Resolution 41 of the 2006 General Assembly Session. 13 House Bill 101 of the 2006 General Assembly Session. 8 – Prayerful reflection on whether United Methodist agencies should continue their membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Whereas, the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society and the United Methodist Women’s Division are members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC); and Whereas, RCRC opposes all proposed restrictions on abortion, including proposed parental notification laws, restrictions on government funding for abortion, and laws that would protect health care personnel from having to participate in abortions; and Whereas, the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church oppose most instances of late-term “partial-birth” abortions (Paragraph 161J) while RCRC has opposed proposed restrictions on partial-birth abortion; and Whereas, the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church oppose abortion for birth control and gender selection (Paragraph 161J) and affirm “the sanctity of unborn human life” (Paragraph 161J), consistent with the testimony of Scripture (for example, Psalm 139:14-15, Luke 1:41-44) and historic Christian teaching; and Whereas, other denominations with abortion stances similar to the United Methodist Church’s have either never associated with RCRC (e.g., the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Christian Church [Disciples of Christ]), or have severed ties with RCRC (American Baptist Churches USA and the Northern Province of the Moravian Church); and Whereas, the 2005 sessions of three other annual conferences of the United Methodist Church (North Georgia, South Indiana, and Louisiana) have adopted resolutions similar to this one; Therefore be it resolved that we call for prayerful reflection on whether United Methodist agencies should continue their membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. John A. Bright, Deborah Albertson, Ellen Booth, Debra Crouch Gene Curd, Mark Gibson, Jennifer Greer, Virginia Greet, William Greer, Betty Holdren, Daniel N. Holdren, Emmett Holdren, Debbie Lanning James W. McCabe, Betty McMillan, Virginia Mitchell, Clayton W. Orange Ricky Lee Overstreet, Becky Reynolds, Judy Tabor, Terry Tabor, Willie Witt 9 – Support of laws protecting the definition of marriage Whereas, the United Methodist Social Principles (paragraph 161C) declare: “We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” and Whereas, marriage is a divinely ordained institution that contributes to social harmony and the protection of children, and Whereas, the Scriptures describe marriage between man and woman as symbolizing the love and faithfulness between God and His people, and Whereas, marriage has been understood across cultures and across the centuries as the faithful union between man and woman, Therefore be it resolved that Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church affirms the United Methodist stance on marriage and support laws in the Commonwealth of Virginia that protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. John A. Bright, Deborah Albertson, Ellen Booth, Debra Crouch, Gene Curd, Mark Gibson, Jennifer Greer, Virginia Greet, William Greer, Betty Holdren, Daniel N. Holdren, Emmett Holdren, Debbie Lanning, James W. McCabe, Betty McMillan, Virginia Mitchell, Clayton W. Orange, Ricky Lee Overstreet, Becky Reynolds, Judy Tabor, Terry Tabor, Willie Witt 10—Ministry to those struggling with sexual brokenness Whereas, the United Methodist Church stands with the clear letter and spirit of the Old and New Testaments, two millennia of consistent Christian tradition, and the overwhelming majority of the world's Christians in declaring homosexual practice to be "incompatible with Christian teaching" (Social Principles, paragraph 161G); Whereas, Jesus Himself affirmed lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage as the only proper context for full sexual expression (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18); Whereas the United Methodist Church recognizes that "Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth" and that "All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment" (Social Principles, paragraph 161G); Whereas God's will for our sexuality is that we be celibate in singleness or faithful in a marriage of one man and one woman (Genesis 1:27-28, 2:24; Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18; Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; Romans 1:26-27, 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:1-16; Galatians 5:19; Colossians 3:5; Hebrews 13:4); Whereas various clinical studies have found that highly motivated individuals have successfully gained freedom from unwanted same-sex attractions through various combinations of therapy and pastoral counseling; Whereas the New Testament church included members who formerly engaged in such sins as idolatry, theft, drunkenness, adultery, and homosexual practice (1 Corinthians 6:9-11); Whereas the United Methodist Church has a long history of supporting ministries that reach out with the transformative love of God to individuals struggling with temptation to sins other than homosexual practice; Whereas a variety of Christian ministries (for example, Transforming Congregations, a national extension ministry of the Peninsula-Delaware Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church) are doing laudable work ministering to people who self-identify as homosexual, bisexual or transgender, without compromising either biblical and United Methodist teachings on sexual morality or the need to be compassionate; Be it therefore resolved that the Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church affirms the great value and importance of Christ-centered ministries that do not compromise biblical standards for sexual morality while reaching out in love to people struggling with sexual brokenness, including but not limited to homosexual feelings. Be it further resolved that the Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church hereby charges the Common Table with, over the next year, investigating various ways that we can support such ministries at the Conference, District, congregational, and individual level; And be it further resolved that the Virginia Conference Common Table be charged with presenting a report on its findings to the 2007 session of our Annual Conference. John A. Bright, Deborah Albertson, Ellen Booth, Debra Crouch, Gene Curd, Mark Gibson, Jennifer Greer, Virginia Greet, William Greer, Betty Holdren, Daniel N. Holdren, Emmett Holdren, Debbie Lanning, James W. McCabe Betty McMillan, Virginia Mitchell, Clayton W. Orange, Ricky Lee Overstreet Becky Reynolds, Judy Tabor, Terry Tabor, Willie Witt 11 - Restoration of Voting Rights Whereas, we have been called to carry on the work of Christ, who reaches out in love to all people, and who in his earthly ministry demonstrated this love by reaching out especially to the poor and vulnerable; Whereas, in a democracy the right to participate in a nation’s political system is an important means of affirming the co-humanity of all citizens of voting age, regardless of their social or economic conditions; Whereas, the right to vote is one of the most important and hard won rights in the political system of the United States; of age or older by the 26th Amendment (1971). Whereas, all mentally competent U.S. citizens have these rights except persons who have at some point in their lives been convicted of a felony; Whereas, there are now approximately 4.7 million such persons in the U.S. who have become permanently disenfranchised due to both state laws, and to ‘get tough’ prosecution and sentencing policies which have increased the number of persons sent to prison, despite a falling crime rate; Whereas, on July 4, 2005, the Governor of Iowa “issued an Executive Order restoring the vote to all felony offenders who have completed their court-imposed sentences, and announced that he would continue this automatic restoration policy on an on-going basis”; Whereas, Virginia is one of only thirteen states in which anyone convicted for a felony is stripped of the right to vote for life, in sharp contrast to two states which permit persons serving life imprisonment to vote and in somewhat lesser contrast with the other thirty-five states which bar offenders from voting while in prison and, to a lesser extent, while on parole or probation, but not for life; Whereas, in Virginia there are over 336,000 persons who have lost their right to vote because of having been convicted for a felony, of whom approximately 264,000 have completed their court-imposed sentences (time in jail or prison, and/or any parole or probation) but who have nevertheless been disenfranchised for the remainder of their life unless these rights are restored by the Governor — a long process which can be quite intimidating to former prisoners and which cannot be initiated until three years after completion of all court-imposed punishment in the case of non-violent offenders, and five years after completion of all court-imposed punishment in the case of violent offenders; Whereas, The United Methodist Church has called for “Restoration of voting rights to ex-offenders”; Whereas, during the period of 1982-2002 under five governors the number of such persons for whom these rights were restored has averaged only 158 per year, and even with a streamlined policy for non-violent offenders during 2002-2006 under Governor Warner these rights were restored to only 852 such persons per year — a combined average of only 2.7 percent of the estimated 10,000 disenfranchised persons released annually from Virginia’s prisons — a very tiny rate out of an ever growing number of disenfranchised Virginians; Whereas, many of these disenfranchised persons have committed only minor, non-violent violations of the law; Whereas, many of these disenfranchised persons are young people under 18 years of age who are losing their right to vote before even getting a chance to exercise it; Whereas, because of the way felony crimes have been defined, and because of racial disparities in arrest, conviction and sentencing, African-American and Latino defendants are much more likely to be convicted for a felony, sentenced to time in prison, and lose the right to vote than are white defendants charged with similar crimes; Whereas, sadly and regrettably, this disproportionate disenfranchisement of persons of color has at times in our history taken place because of intentional acts of malice; Whereas, in Virginia approximately one out of every four adult black men — 25 percent — have been disenfranchised for life; Whereas, “No other democratic country in the world denies as many people — in absolute or proportionate terms — the right to vote because of felony convictions”; Whereas, decades ago, “Mainstream groups such as the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute came out against lifetime disenfranchisement”; Whereas, life long disenfranchisement of persons who have paid their debt to society by completing all court-imposed punishment (time in jail or prison, and/or any parole and probation) is a continuation of punishment which not only fails to serve any useful purpose but which also fails to help re-integrate former offenders back into mainstream society, obstructs their restoration to the dignity of full citizens, and is therefore unjust and harmful; Whereas, this ever growing number of persons who have been disenfranchised for the remainder of their life constitutes a growing civic, moral and political crisis; Now, be it hereby resolved that this Annual Conference: 1. Goes on record as viewing life-long disenfranchisement of persons who have completed all court-imposed punishment as an unjustified denial of a fundamental human right; 2. Calls upon our Governor and Members of the General Assembly to urgently prepare, pass and implement legislation which will restore the right to vote to persons who have paid their debt to society by completing the punishment to which they were sentenced, including parole and probation, and thereby bring Virginia into conformity with the vast majority of other states; 3. Requests our Bishop to send copies of this resolution in its entirety, including introductory material and supporting documentation, along with a suitable covering letter, to the Governor of Virginia and all members of the Legislative Assembly; 4. Requests our Bishop to arrange for a Virginia Conference delegation to meet with Governor Kaine to discuss the need for the restoration of voting rights to all persons who have completed their court-imposed punishment and to encourage the appointment of an advisory commission, consisting of representatives from the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, and representatives from faith communities and relevant advocacy groups in Virginia, to advise him about options for restoration of voting rights such as an executive order and/or legislative action. 5. Requests our Bishop to send copies of this resolution in its entirety, including the introductory material and supporting documentation, along with a suitable covering letter, to the Virginia Council of Churches and the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, requesting support from them and their member bodies. 6. Requests the Conference Committee on Criminal Justice and Mercy Ministries to promote a restoration of voting rights program in each District of the Conference; 7. Encourages United Methodists in Virginia to contact Governor Kaine, and their representatives in the General Assembly, and urge them to take appropriate executive and legislative action to restore voting rights to persons who have completed their court-imposed punishment. 8. Recognizes that this resolution updates and supersedes the resolution of the same title passed by this Conference in 2001. John Copenhaver, Hunter Mabry, Elaine Williamson and Rob Vaughn End Notes The right to vote was extended to persons of color by the 15th Amendment (1870); to women by the 19th Amendment (1920); to the poor by the 24th Amendment abolishing the poll tax (1964), and to persons 18 years Marc Mauer and Tushar Kansal, Barred for Life: Voting Rights Restoration In Permanent Disenfranchisement States (Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project, 2005), 1. <www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/rights-restoration/Iowa.pdf> (1February 2006). Like in Virginia, prior to this action persons in Iowa convicted for a felony lost their right to vote for life and this right could be restored only by individual application to the Governor. The Governor’s Executive Order restored the vote to approximately 30,000 persons who had completed their court-imposed sentences, out of approximately 80,000 disenfranchised ex-felons. <www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2006/01/30> (1 February 2006) The other states which disenfranchise for life persons convicted for a felony are: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming. The two states which permit imprisoned offenders to vote are Maine and Vermont. Mauer and Kansal, Barred for Life ..., 1; Margaret Colgate Love, “Relief From the Collateral Consequences Of A Criminal Conviction: A State-By-State Resource Guide,” Table 7. <www.sentencingproject.org/rights_restoration/table7.html> (1 February 2006). These figures are based on the U.S. Census estimate of the total population of Virginia as of mid-2005 (7,567,465) and calculations based on what is widely accepted as the most comprehensive and reliable study of felon disenfran-chisement in the U.S., “Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States,” by Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza, American Sociological Review, 2002, Vol. 67 (Dec. 777-803). Conditions for restoration of voting rights are at the governor’s discretion. Gov. Warner set the three and five year waiting periods. Gov. Kaine has stated that he will continue Warner’s policy. Resolution on “Prisons and Criminal Justice” (adopted in 2000), The Book of Resolutions 2004, 650. Mauer and Kansal, Barred for Life . . . , 21. Christine Bellantoni, “3414 felon’s rights restored,” The Washington Times (13 January 2006). The 10,000 estimate is from a personal conversation with Rev. Cecil McFarland, Director, Chaplain Service of the Churches of Virginia which provides a variety of services for the incarcerated. Embezzlement, and the unauthorized disclosure of certain kinds of information, are two examples of non-violent crimes that can be treated as felonies and which, consequently, could bar a person from voting for the rest of his or her life. Andrew Shapiro, “The Disenfranchised”, The American Prospect, 8/35 (Nov. 1, 1997-Dec. 1, 1997), <www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V8/35/shapiro-a.html>, 3 (5 March 2001). “In Virginia, U.S. Senator Carter Glass worked to expand the disenfranchisement laws along with poll taxes and literacy tests. He described the state’s 1901 convention as follows: ‘Discrimination! Why that is precisely what we propose. That, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limits of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every Negro voter who can be gotten rid of legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.’” Nicholas Thompson, “Locking Up The Vote”, The Washington Monthly (January/February 2001): 19. The Washington Post (23 March 2001): A22. Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States (New York: Human Rights Watch and The Sentencing Project, 1998); <www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvote98o.htm> (4 March 2001). Andrew Shapiro, “The Disenfranchised” . . . , 3. 12- Civil Rights for all Virginians by Opposing the Virginia Marriage Amendment Whereas, drawing on our long tradition of seeking justice and upon Jesus’ concern for the marginalized and; Whereas, the Virginia General Assembly has placed on an upcoming ballot the “Virginia Marriage Amendment” that states: That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage; Whereas, our Social Principles state: Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation—Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons. We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting their rightful claims where they have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law. 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. (2004 Book of Discipline, ¶162H); Whereas, the proposed amendment would define marriage, we find it excessive to amend the Virginia Constitution to define civil marriage while state law already defines marriage as between a man and woman; Whereas the proposed amendment would do more than define marriage, Virginia law already goes beyond the prohibition of civil marriage by same-sex couples with current law that prohibits civil unions, domestic partnership and any “other arrangement” between same-sex couples that purports to bestow the benefits of marriage and federal law protects Virginia from being forced to recognize such marriages formed in other states; Whereas, the proposed amendment would deny the legal protections and financial stability offered by civil marriage to same sex couples, and extend the restrictions on recognizing relationships of all unmarried couples, the proposed amendment would threaten health care coverage for domestic partners and render unconstitutional the application of domestic violence laws to unmarried people, disregarding the fact that decisions regarding such benefits ought to be made by the private sector and not prohibited by the Commonwealth; Whereas, an editorial by the Richmond Times-Dispatch has captured the concern about discrimination by stating: … The state should not tell churches how to administer their rites. Neither should legislation regarding the definition of marriage go out of its way specifically to exclude alternative vehicles allowing homosexuals to engage more fully in civil society.1 Whereas, the codification of discrimination against homosexuals into the Virginia Constitution would be simple injustice, and would echo a time of legislated segregation and the prohibition of inter-racial marriages; Whereas, amending the constitution as proposed would remove from the elected legislature the ability to change Virginia law as needed to provide for the economic and social well-being of all Virginians; Therefore, be it resolved that based upon our Social Principles statement affirming “equal rights regardless of sexual orientation”2 and our deep concerns for the unintended consequences and harm which the amendment could cause, the Virginia Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church recommends opposition to amending the Virginia Constitution as proposed in the “Virginia Marriage Amendment”. Rob Vaughn, Hunter Mabry, John Copenhaver and Elaine Williamson End Notes 1Wedding Rings, Richmond Times-Dispatch, (January 26, 2006) 22004 Book of Discipline, ¶162H 13—Resolution affirming Bishops’ Document “A Statement of Conscience: A Call to Repentance and Peace with Justice” Whereas, from the time of the early church one of the primary functions of bishops was teaching and instructing the faithful, Whereas, bishops in the Episcopal tradition are called to act in Christ’s name for the reconciliation of the world and the building up of the Church; (BCP p. 855) Whereas, 109 United Methodist Bishops, active and retired, including Bishop Charlene P. Kammerer, Bishop Joseph E. Pennel, Bishop Timothy W. Whitaker, and Bishop C. P. Minnick, have issued “A Statement of Conscience: A Call to Repentance and Peace with Justice,” which follows below, A Statement of Conscience: A Call to Repentance and Peace with Justice As followers of Jesus Christ, who named peacemakers as blessed children of God, we call upon The United Methodist Church to join us in repentance and renewed commitment to Christ's reign of compassion, justice, reconciliation, and peace. As elected and consecrated bishops of the church, we repent of our complicity in what we believe to be the unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq. In the face of the United States Administration's rush toward military action based on misleading information, too many of us were silent. We confess our preoccupation with institutional enhancement and limited agendas while American men and women are sent to Iraq to kill and be killed, while thousands of Iraqi people needlessly suffer and die, while poverty increases and preventable diseases go untreated. Although we value the sacrifices of the men and women who serve in the military, we confess our betrayal of the scriptural and prophetic authority to warn the nations that true security lies not in weapons of war, but in enabling the poor, the vulnerable, the marginalized to flourish as beloved daughters and sons of God. We confess our failure to make disciples of Jesus Christ and to be a people who welcome and love all those for whom Christ died.
We call upon all United Methodists to join in the pursuit of peace through justice as revealed in Holy Scripture and incarnate in Jesus Christ.
Let us work toward unity in a world of diversity, that all peoples will come to know that we belong to one another, and that "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself … and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us"(2 Corinthians 5:19). Therefore, be it resolved that the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church affirms the Bishop’s “Statement of Conscience: A Call to Repentance and Peace with Justice” and encourages clergy and laity to study the call and share it with members of their congregations that all may “bring forth fruit worthy of repentance” and share more deeply in the ministry of reconciliation that Christ bequeathed to his followers. John Copenhaver, Rob Vaughn, Hunter Mabry, Elaine Williamson III. Referred to the Board of Discipleship 14 - Hymnal reinstatement of “Eternal Father, Strong To Save” 1. Eternal Father, strong to save, whose arm has bound the restless wave, Who bid the mighty ocean deep its own appointed limits keep: Oh hear us when we cry to thee for those in peril on the sea. 2. O Savior, whose almighty word the wind and waves submissive heard, 3. O Holy Spirit, who did brood upon the chaos wild and rude, And bid its angry tumult cease, and gave, for fierce confusion, peace: O hear us when we cry to thee for those in peril on the sea. 4. O Trinity of love and power, all travelers guard in danger’s hour; From rock and tempest, fire and foe, protect them wheresoe’er they go; Thus evermore shall rise to thee glad praise from air and land and sea. The Administrative Board of Virginia Beach UMC
|