I find myself flummoxed by assertions that B033 was a "failure." That depends, I suppose, on what one considers its purpose to have been. As I understand it, the purpose was to get our bishops to Lambeth and to keep our Presiding Bishop at the Primates' Meeting. Well, our bishops (minus one) were at Lambeth, and, as far as I know, Katharine is planning on being in Egypt next month. Sounds pretty much like a success to me. That some (most who are vocal on this list, at any rate) consider B033 too high a price to pay for such success I totally get. But it is manifestly not a failure if it is evaluated in terms of what it was designed to accomplish.
I find myself equally flummoxed by assertions that "a lot has changed" or that "society has moved on" since 2006, thus consigning B033, or anything like it, to the ash heap of history. As another poster has observed, the success of Proposition 8 in California, along with other similar measures in other states, gives the lie to such an assertion. But even if the assertion were true, it would still be at best marginally relevant to B033, since B033's "audience" is not TEC, or American society, but the rest of the Anglican Communion in general, and the Four Instruments in particular. I suspect many in TEC have been lulled into the notion that the "Windsor Process" has ground to a halt because it hasn't been making news of late. This is a serious mistake, IMO. It's taking a long time to work itself out (thus having long alienated conservatives of a GAFCON disposition), but it is working itself out with a higher level of inexorability than many realize. Any movement to distance ourselves from B033 will only hasting and intensify the day of reckoning in which we will be forced to choose between the vision of (what the majority party calls) "full inclusion" and the vision of a worldwide Anglican Communion.
With General Convention looming now less that seven months away, the HoB/D listserv is beginning to heat up over potential specific resolutions. One of these--not yet crafted and submitted to my knowledge--will be to repeal Resolution B033 from 2006--the one that, by some accounts, effects a moratorium on the consecration of more partnered gay bishops. I share below my own most recent contribution to the conversation.
No surprise here, but I'm going to weigh against anything that even smells like repealing B033. Not that I was particularly crazy about it at the time; I didn't think it was strong enough, and was dismayed that it did not address the question of the blessing of same-sex unions.
Of course, I realize that mine is a minority viewpoint, and there is nothing to be gained by arguing my point, as it were, "on the merits." It seems expedient, however, to remind the members of this list, particularly those who are new deputies at this year's convention, of the context in which B033 was moved and carried.
The issue on the floor was the Episcopal Church's formal response to certain requests contained in the document known as the Windsor Report, produced by the international commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in response to what were widely perceived as the provocative actions of the 2003 General Convention. A special legislative committee was tasked with crafting, and bringing to the floor, resolutions that would address these requests, one of which was to effect a "moratorium" on the consecration of any more non-celibate gay bishops. The committee's resolution on this question had been defeated in the HOD two days before the scheduled close of convention. At stake was the participation of members of TEC in the wider councils of the Anglican Communion, including the Lambeth Conference. This is why Bishop Griswold and Bishop Jefferts Schori advocated so assiduously for its passage.
Contrary to what some have written, the purpose of B033 was not to smooth the way for conservatives in certain offshore provinces to participate in Lambeth and other meetings. It was to ensure that TEC would have a place at such venues. And it was, by all accounts, successful. While some, myself included, have at times contended that it was not worthy of such success, B033, together with the HOB New Orleans statement in September 2007, was a key ingredient in the issuance of invitations to our bishops to attend Lambeth '08, to say nothing of the Presiding Bishop's continued participation in the Primates' Meeting.
Even though there has been no recent drama, Deputies and Bishops should be under no illusion that "all is well" with respect to TEC's relationship with the Anglican Communion and continued unclouded communion with the See of Canterbury. The reports of the Windsor Continuation Group at last summer's Lambeth Conference, along with the presidential addresses of Archbishop Williams, can lead to no optimism for our continued place in the communion should we back off from what are understood by the rest of the communion to be commitments on our part. Those for whom such considerations are of marginal importance may well feel emboldened to make the mind of this Church with respect to "full inclusion" crystal clear. But those for whom our place in the Communion is still a non-negotiable mark of Episcopalian identity will, no matter what their opinions may be on the sexuality issues, want to think long and hard before voting Aye on any resolutions stemming from such boldness.
My first grandchild--Charlotte Louise Martins Washington--was born three weeks ago tomorrow. But since her house is 537 miles away from mine, Nana Dragonfly and I were not able to meet her personally untl yesterday. She's a beauty, alright, and we are thrilled to begin our relationship with her. She won't remember it, of course--though, God knows, there will be plenty of pictures to prove to her that the event took place. 
