Sign on, Sign off, Sign in, Sign of

I was under the mistaken impression that "our "Katharine did not sign the communique that was published following the Primates' meeting in Dar es Salaam. It was even more disheartening when I heard that the Archbishop of Canada was willing not to sign the statement in support of her if the PB didn't want to sign.

What does the signing of the communique mean? Does it mean that she consents to return the inclusion of LGBT folk to the realm of study? Does that mean the canons which have articulated not only the practice but the theology of inclusion for the past 30 years are to be ignored for the sake of Primates who are willing to ignore our borders? Or does her signature just mean that this is the only way that TEC can sit at the table? If that is the case I do not believe that there is enough left of the Anglican Communion that I would want to be part of.

Archbishop Andrew's description of the meeting made it clear that the issue was not the blessing of unions because Canada was hardly mentioned in the communique. It was clearly a US bashing that was going on. Now I am not a red/white and blue patriot. But it was clear that it was "Beat up on the woman in the house because the gay bishop isn't here" time and that makes me really angry.

I do not believe that ++KJS signed off on the Primates' communique--that she believes for one moment that LGBT folk are not welcome in the Church. I do believe that she is trying to sign TEC in to keep our foot in the door of the Anglican Communion. But the sign that she has given to the LGBT community is one that we cannot afford.