There were so many things wrong with what happened in 2003 in TEC at that General Convention, but this one bears repeating in addition to what you have said: it was done out of order.
You cannot approve bishops in relationships the church has not decided the bless.  TEC did it backwards, as an end run around the issue of blessing same sex unions.

I agree, and was at GC2003, what happened was irregular at best. Mostly it was a campaign around the issue of thinking the candidate was a great guy, and so we should vote for him.

We haven’t changed our core teaching and the Pray Book, which contains our docrtine, doesn’t imagine sexual activity outside of the bonds of marriage. Any “blessings” or “unions” done until the prayer book is changed are nothing more then empty ceremonies charading as liturgy. At best they are irregular.

Archbishop Rowan Williams said as much to Time Magazine:

Today Williams calls Robinson’s election — absent any prior general decision allowing the ordination of people in same-sex relationships — “bizarre and puzzling.”

I like the fact that Canadians meet as one house.  +Michael Ramsey remarked after visiting our GC that the houses meet separately and talk to themselves! I too am impressed that the matter is admitted to be a doctrinal one, despite the fact that they seem to have created a three tier hierarchy of doctrine, “core doctrine”, doctrine and “matters indifferent.”  That’s hardly classical Anglicanism but at least an attempt to remain within the tradition.

The stratagy in GC 03 was deliberate and was designed to advance the GLBT agenda through the back door.  It was well done and well executed.  And it was totaly dishonest.  But it worked.

I disagree with Br. Michael emphatically. Gene Robinson was elected bishop by a diocese in which he had served with distinction over many years.  The people who were given the authority to elect, chose a man they knew had all the spiritual gifts from God to be an effective and godly bishop for them.
Other dioceses have elected men who have been greedy, misogynist, given to false witness, ambitious and covetous. Usually our church has trusted the electing diocese to have come to the conclusion that those sins are not impediments to being an effective and godly bishop—in fact, many of those disabilities can be transformed with the grace of God into powerful tools for the ministry of Jesus Christ. So New Hampshire said about Gene Robinson.
Doesn’t St. Paul describe the spiritual gifts as (1) given by God, not manufactured and (2) the real mark of God’s favor in ministry? Why go back to the Law—even though Paul slips in that regard from time to time.
Tom Woodward

Tom, how many of those bishops in other dioceses bragged about their greed, misogyny, mendaciousness, or covetousness, and taught their flocks that such behavior was not sinful?  Isn’t the Christian doctrine of Grace inextricably entwined with the overcoming of such sinful inclinations, rather than the vaunting of them?

Tom, the process was out of order, first you decide to bless the relationships then you approve a bishop who is in such a relationship.  I disagree with the outcome and the method of getting there.  What is crucial to understand is that many who agree with the outcome disagree with how it was arrived at.

For all the vaunted talk of polity and process we didn’t go about it properly.

Craig, Gene Robinson has not bragged about his sexuality or his relationship. He just isn’t that kind of person. He certainly struggled with the self-hatred our culture and our church has instilled in homosexual people.  I believe that self-hatred has been transformed into self-affirmation—and I believe the Holy Spirit was active in that transformation. We disagree about that.

I believe that God has, in many, transformed such things as covetousness and greed into passion for the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ. The analogy here is not exact, but illustrative.

Kendall, I have mixed feelings about the process, or method. I certainly respect your point of view and I know that it comes from your deep love for this church and a great deal of reflection. I see other things at work here, though—such as the close ties of this issue with several others, such as the ordination of women and the contention I and others have made all along that this matter is adiaphora, not core doctrine. Maybe it is that high-risk gene in my make-up—I’ve spent a lot of time on the margins of the church, in part because that has been the task of campus clergy—we tend to see and experience and often judge things differently from those who minister more at the center.
Tom Woodward

#9: Gene Robinson lied when he took his vows. This is incontrovertible. He said that he would do nothing that would disturb the unity of the church. He said that the issue of a homosexual bishop would quickly subside, like the women in the priesthood. He then consistently maintained that his sodomy, and his boyfriend were not sinful, not against scripture.
    Tell me again about his excellence, his honor, his integrity. It does not bear scrutiny. You are not looking at the real man; I suspect that you are simply defending an agenda. LM

#9 said,

“...Gene Robinson has not bragged about his sexuality or his relationship.”

Tom, after his consecration as bish, Robinson started addressing audiences all around the country on his position regarding the participation of active GLBTs in the church and society and regarding his own sexuality.

I don’t know if you would classify this as bragging, but he has not been hesitant to speak out.

AnglicanFirst, I would not classify that as bragging. Self-acceptance and acceptance of oneself as a precious child of God—and sharing that—can provide the basis for others’ movement towards the same. That is akin to our basic motivation as evangelists. Many people have heard the Good News about God through +Gene who otherwise would not have heard it.

Larry, I disagree. The vows are in the Book of Common Prayer to read. No priest or bishop would vow to do nothing that would disturb the unity of the church—most progress in our culture and in our church has come through people willing to disturb the unity of the church (read Taylor Branch’s books on the civil rights movement if you want a good example).
I agree with him that the opposition to consecrating openly gay men and lesbian women will subside. In the stretch of things, four years is not long. Lastly, he did not vow that homosexual relationships are not sinful, per se. That is his judgment, based on experience, a fair reading of Scripture, and noting the full presence of the Holy Spirit in many committed gay and lesbian relationships.  You make other judgments. He is not flouting Scripture or the traditions of the church.
BTW, I do object to your reducing a complex human relationship to “sodomy.” The statistics show that a large number of Christian married couples (and singles having sexual relationships) practice sodomy and understand that is OK within their own relationships. Further, +Gene does not have a “boyfriend” - he has a life-long partner with whom he has pledged love and fidelity and a Christ centered life together. Would you want your wife to be called your “wench” or “playmate?”
Tom Woodward

TBWSF- the fallacy in your semantics, which is the basis for your argument here as it certainly isn’t scriptural (if it is, try referencing your penultimate sentence to anything in the bible), is shown in your last sentence. My wife is certainly both my wench and playmate within the bounds of matrimony. In fact, scripture encourages me to “wench” with her for several reasons. Only in unfashionably prim society is this not recognized, unless you prefer to let some of the lawless connotations of “wench” or “playmate” be the sole definition of those words.
But to return to your thematic point encompassed in your penultimate sentence, nowhere does scripture encourage homosexual “wenching”, or sexual relations of any sort outside of Holy Matrimony. So far in this thread you have failed to indicate that VGR’s sexual habits occur on the right side of that sheet.

We can use parts of the Bible as idols, that is separating us from God. I believe that is happening with the few passages about homosexuality in the Bible: with the focus on those verses, we have ignored the presence of the Holy Spirit in so many gay and lesbian relationships. What do you make of David’s relationship with Jonathan—it is possible, with mental gymnastics, to neutralize the relationship, but the plain meaning of that Scripture is a celebration of the fullness of love of those two men for each other.
Unfortunately, Biblical norms for relationships within marriage are quite confused—we have moved beyond the polygamy that is practiced throughout Biblical times, we have rejected male domination and oppression, which seems to be the rule throughout Scripture, we have moved beyond considering women as chattel, as was supported by Scripture. My wife and I are grateful, daily, that we are not beholden to the notion of married relationships in “the faith once delivered to the saints.” That was a macho thing that seemed OK as long as women were not fully human.
Tom Woodward

TBWSF
You can “use parts of the Bible as idols, that is separating us from God”, but I would prefer to use Scripture as indicative of what He wishes us to do with our lives and how we play a role in His creation.
But talk about gymnastics: so you are stating that Scripture advises that a non celibate relationship between two men, David and Jonathan, is both good and faithful to the Law? Without citation of external argument and making none of your own? That is indeed making a god out of something fashioned by your own hands.

“the tone was respectful and I give the Canadians high marks…they are taking it more seriously…good for them.”
So, the Canadian rebellion against God is being conducted in a more civil manner than the American one, Rev. Harmon?  Sorry, no “good for them” from this side of the theological divide.