Like Philo, I was checking out the General Assembly documents. You can get them here.
I noted a cryptic line in the agenda for Plenary (session) III, on Saturday (p. 5): Why the Amendment to Bylaw Section C-2.3 Is Not on the Agenda.
Why, indeed! Or, what is she — evoking Moderator Gini Courter — talking about?
I get a hint from Plenary IV from the last GA; C-bylaws need two years’ approval. Again, more coded language and I checked out that agenda. (Get it here; it is a PDF.)
The issue is changing the language of the non-discrimination clause of the UUA bylaws. Protected categories color and sex proposed to become ethnicity and gender, plus language, citizenship status, and economic status.
I would think we’re in slam-dunk territory, but clearly we’re not. Is a legal issue? A polity issue? Too much? Too little? Or, as I fear, it is unmanagable. What would these protections provide? Mean?
Does anyone know?
Last year, the GA approved the second-year amendment you found — but the Youth Caucus raised concerns about it, arguing that gender does not fully encompass sex and that ethnicity does not fully encompass color; other youth delegates, however, challenged that suggestion. At any rate, a question was raised about whether to introduce yet another two-year amendment to revise the thinking yet again. I haven’t reviewed all the documents in the meantime, so there may be something more here, but I think it’s really just a response to the concerns raised by the Youth Caucus.