How close was the vote? Because I know for a fact the UMC has been trending extremist liberal for years...
Though the margins were comfortable, the fact that so many are ready to let evil completely overcome a major denomination is horrific. And it's believed that much of the opposition vote was from overseas, mostly Africa, where true Christian understanding hasn't been sullied like it has here in North America.
Including photos and reactions of the angry sodomite losers.
Unfortunately, many Americans believe the above about the United Methodist Church. I speak as one of its fully ordained elders (ministers) with seminary degree, ordination, career as a military chaplain, and years in the local parish.
Now for the truth.
1. Conservatives in the UMC won a HUGE victory a few years back when they hoodwinked a then-trending-liberal denomination into changing the way delegates were sent to this every-4-year church business meeting. They pushed through a requirement that delegates be chosen proportionate to the number of members in a geographic region rather than trying to balance representation by different geographic regions. This resulted in GROWING regions sending more delegates. Christian churches that GROW are very disproportionately evangelical and not liberal. The result was that votes were taken away from the northeast, the west coast, and the great lakes. More votes were awarded to the south, the southwest, and to the overseas membership in Africa, Asia, and S America. ALL of those had a much, much higher proportion of evangelicals. (Interestingly, the liberals tried to undo this 4 years ago by changing the denomination from a world body into a group of national bodies each responsible for their own rules. That failed miserably, but it was a "stealth" move they thought, and they tried to sell it as allowing overseas churches NOT to be "colonized" by "imperial American churches." After gagging a bit on the rhetoric, it was overwhelmingly voted down.
2. The UMC has NEVER supported homosexuality, homosexual pastors, and homosexual marriage. Our book of rules has been quite clear on that. Where does the impression arise that they do support it? Because Northeast, Pacific, and Great Lakes regions are full of gay sympathizers, and they are very vocal and DO still have some important positions in the church media, the church agencies, and in church colleges and seminaries. With a meeting only once every 4 years for only 2 weeks, things move slowly in the UMC, so changing structures to allow changes in those positions has NOT been the priority. The priority has been on preserving our rules and gain proportional voting.
For those interested, and many aren't because they simply prefer to bash Methodism, our position is that "homosexuality is INCOMPATIBLE with Christian teaching", that "self-avowed homosexuals" will not be ordained, that homosexual marriages will NOT take place in our churches.
3. Trials in our church: FWIW, think of the US system of rights given to defendants in our courts, and you have the Methodist judicial system almost to a T. Now try to convict someone under that system when rules of evidence are virtually the same. A part of me appreciates that protection, because it's the way I would be treated if someone charged me with something, but it also means that those who are vociferous on the streets clam up in the courts. Just a thought: how do you PROVE someone is a homosexual? Unless they're willing to stand proudly and affirm it, then you're looking for videotape that doesn't exist.
This response is already too long, but consider it a primer on the state of the war that's been waged for decades now in the UMC. Evangelicals are slowly, slowly winning one, but that generally isn't recognized.