Forget about absentee ballots; show up to vote on Nov. 7

You can find this comment in its entirety here. I want to make some additional observations about it.

Anonymous said ...
Like one of the earlier posters, I found it very difficult to glean information from the internet on this issue. It just hasn't been condensed and published to the LCdC website, and I'm not sure why.

Frankly, everyone I’ve spoken with is somewhat dismayed with this fact, including other congregations who are wrestling with this problem.  Unfortunately, not having complete information available and nowhere to get it leads to distrust of the process and an uninformed voter.

Anonymous said ...
The original letter that was sent out to the congregation last March (prior to the first vote) instructed everyone to visit the LCdC website for FAQs and further information. A google search indicates that there was more information out there at one time, but it has been taken down. Why take down that information, when we are so close to the 2nd (and deciding) vote?

I would concur.  We desperately need to have all the information at our fingertips at this time.  Without which we will not make an informed decision.  This big of a decision demands complete and total knowledge, dispensed in a transparent method.

Anonymous said ...
I did eventually find enough information through other sources, however, so that I am now completely baffled what all the hubbub is about. The resolution that was passed by the ELCA leaves the decision on whether or not to hire gay clergy of any type completely up to the individual congregations. So the pastoral staff can always decide whether or not to hire someone based on their particular sexual preference.

This is precisely the original concern I had after reading the decisions and supporting documentation.  Why in the world are we in such an uproar over something that need not directly affect us, unless we so choose to address it at time of a proposed hire.  What is the reasoning here?

Anonymous said ...
Regarding the votes required in order for a congregation to leave the ELCA, I am perplexed why absentee balloting isn't allowed, as it is in political elections. In the first vote, there were roughly 450 congregation members who voted. Last I checked, LCdC has over 3300 members, however.

It is stated in our constitution, that “2/3rds of the membership PRESENT” is required to pass legislation at a congregational meeting.  While I agree with you that absentee balloting or on campus balloting is common sense, we are playing by the rules here.

Anonymous said ...
Surely 14% of the laity cannot possibly be representative of the entire congregation! Why not allow absentee ballots? They could be mailed out with the next bulletin, and then perhaps we could get a much better representation of the congregation as a whole in the 2nd (and deciding) vote that is coming up on Nov. 7.

I think this is a wonderful idea, but our constitution does not allow for it.  I would feel a whole lot more comfortable knowing that an entire congregation is in favor or not in favor of such a seismic shift in direction. I want to share a very very scary statistic with you.  Everyone by now knows that Community of Joy has withdrawn from ELCA.  But did you know, that out of a rostered membership of 5500, only 112 people showed up to vote and make that decision?  112 out of 5500!  Is this what we want for La Casa to duplicate?  I think not!