Controversial Amendment Threatens Denver as Contender for 1997 General Convention
Episcopal News Service. April 15, 1993 [93066]
Just three years after the Episcopal Church was convulsed in a debate over the site of the 1991 General Convention in a state that had rejected a holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., a new flap threatens to embroil a city that is seeking to host the 1997 meeting.
The controversial constitutional amendment adopted by Colorado voters, known as Amendment 2, that overturned so-called gay rights ordinances in a number of Colorado cities has forced planners of the 1997 General Convention to reconsider whether to leave Denver on list of three possible contenders for the meeting.
Denver, Orlando and Philadelphia were three sites approved for consideration at the 1991 General Convention in Phoenix. During a recent meeting of the church's Joint Standing Committee on Planning and Arrangements (JSCPA), members of the committee grappled with the issues surrounding Denver. Some members of JSCPA expressed concern that lesbian and gay Episcopalians might be subject to discrimination if the convention were held in Denver. The committee concluded that Denver should be removed from consideration in 1997, but that the church should be in dialogue with Colorado Episcopalians about the issues involved in Amendment 2, and Denver might be considered for the convention in 2000.
Almost as soon as the JSCPA had decided to drop Denver from consideration, a series of new developments emerged that might eventually lead the committee to reconsider its decision.
In response to a lawsuit filed by a group of Colorado residents and the cities of Denver, Aspen and Boulder, a Denver district judge has placed an injunction on Amendment 2, preventing state officials from enacting it into law until after a full legal review -- expected by the end of 1993. In addition, attempts to repeal the amendment are under way, leading some observers to conclude that it may never become law.
"Because of this and other new developments, we felt that we should at least look at Denver again," said Pamela Chinnis, president of the Episcopal Church's House of Deputies. "We are not under the same kind of time pressure that we had with Phoenix."
In a March 24 memo to members of the JSCPA, Chinnis and Presiding Bishop Edmond L. Browning wrote that "a number of extenuating circumstances have developed which might suggest that the committee rethink its decision." They reported that practical problems with two other sites have developed -- in Philadelphia a snag has developed regarding available hotel space, and in Orlando there is difficulty with proposed dates for the convention.
Members of the JSCPA will visit Denver in early May. Chinnis noted that the upcoming site visit will allow members of the Diocese of Colorado to speak to the committee in favor of Denver. "We are still in a period where we are gathering data in order to make a decision," she said.
Prior to the vote on Amendment 2, Colorado Bishop William Winterrowd publicly opposed its adoption. In the October-November issue of the Colorado Episcopalian, Winterrowd wrote that it was "inappropriate to ban local ordinances that protect the basic civil rights of any minority, including the rights of the gay community." Citing the baptismal covenant and resolutions of General Conventions, Winterrowd said that his opposition to Amendment 2 was "founded on my understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that all people are children of God."
Winterrowd still rejects an argument by supporters of Amendment 2 that it upholds equal rights for homosexuals but prevents the state from recognizing "special rights" for them. "Our understanding of justice as Christians is to say that we feel compelled to protect the human rights of all people -- especially of minority persons," he said.
Winterrowd said that, because of efforts to overturn Amendment 2, it may be a moot question by 1997. However, even if the amendment is in force then, he feels that Denver should still be considered. Are any of the other cities better or more tolerant, he asked? "We wouldn't go anywhere if we felt the place in which we meet must be perfect," he asserted. "You go -- particularly if you feel that the diocese is open to addressing the issues." He said that he plans to speak personally with the JSCPA when it visits Denver this spring.
In our diocese, we do not have a uniform understanding or agreement about homosexuality," Winterrowd admitted. "But we are trying to struggle in the face of ambiguity and to move out of a 'win-lose' way of dealing with one another on the subject."
At its recent 106th annual convention, the Diocese of Colorado adopted a resolution affirming prior General Convention statements on the civil rights of homosexuals. However, a call for a repeal of Amendment 2 failed and the diocesan convention passed a compromise resolution that condemns "all discrimination in matters of civil rights based upon whether persons are gay men, lesbians, or bisexuals, and calls for such persons to be guaranteed the full protection of the civil laws, urging Colorado Episcopalians to make every effort in public and private to insure that such equal protection in provided in actuality."
Kim Byham, director of communication for Integrity, a national organization of lesbian and gay Episcopalians, described the action by the Colorado diocesan convention as "lukewarm." Byham noted that other denominations in Colorado specifically opposed Amendment 2 or have called for its repeal. He denied the suggestion that there was a parallel between the situation in Phoenix in 1991 and the current situation with Denver. "In Arizona, the Episcopal diocese passed a resolution supporting a Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday. In contrast, the 1993 diocesan convention did not call for a repeal of Amendment 2," Byham said.
Members of the national board of Integrity adopted a resolution on April 13 calling on "our national church and the agencies and institutions which report to it to refrain from scheduling General Convention, other meetings or official activities in the State of Colorado until such time as Amendment 2 is repealed or overturned."
However, Byham said that the lesbian and gay community might be more willing to meet in Denver if the convention focused "on the sin of homophobia." He suggested that a Denver General Convention should "do homophobia workshops and have a homophobia audit," just as the convention in Phoenix had focused on "the sin of racism." Byham said that he thought lesbian and gay Episcopalians might participate in such a focus, "if we have input into planning comparable to that which African-American Episcopalians had in planning the agenda at Phoenix."
Winterrowd said that he would support having the 1997 convention in Denver as "an opportunity to look at homophobia and to deal with all the questions the church has about sexuality."