At least seven lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Anglican (mostly American) organizations attended the meeting in support of “full inclusion of LGBT people in the life and ministry of the churches of the Anglican Communion”. Conservative bishops strongly disapprove of the movement and have even threatened to divide the church. According to the Economist, bishops from Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda with more traditionalist parishes refused to attend the meeting in protest.

One of the most controversial liberal figures is Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly gay, non-celibate, 61-year-old Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire, USA. He was not permitted to enter the meeting, but he opened a video blog devoted to the Lambeth event, called The Gene Pool, where he offered almost daily video commentaries.

In one video, he addresses the LGBT Episcopalian community with words of hope and strength.

The bishop's video-posts are paired with a flow of comments, always engaging even when expressing different views.

One commenter, Una, says:

Thank you Gene. I am a straight believer in God's love for ALL people, irrespective of race, religion, sex, gender. I too pray that those of us who live in countries where hush-hush is the order of the day can stand with you in open honesty about who we are as Christians in our own cultures. Like you, I continue to hope, though I am not an optimist in regard to the Lambeth outcome.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has done his best to keep the church together, and not made outspoken statements in support of LGBT rights, in spite of being known to hold more liberal views. Bishop Gene Robinson takes aim at Rowan Williams' “centrist stance” in a post on his other blog Canterbury Tales from the Fringe:

The morning we left Edinburgh, the headlines in the London Times announced the publication of letters sent by +Rowan Williams several years ago, in response to a conservative evangelical, in which he says that after many years of study and prayer, he has concluded that faithful, life-long-intentioned, monogamous love between two people of the same sex is NOT prohibited by scripture — and that scripture simply does not address this new phenomenon. Precisely what I and others have been saying all along.

(…) he has steadfastly done what he has said he would do: set his own personal understandings aside and take a centrist stance “for the good of the whole Church.” This is not news, folks! But it is indeed sad.

There were many other blogs created by liberal participants at the Lambeth meeting, including the Lambeth Conference LGBT Anglican Portal, Walking with Integrity, and the Lambeth News Blog.

In a final official release about the Conference, Episcopal Life Online quotes the Rev. Susan Russell, president of Integrity USA, and a parish priest based in Los Angeles:

“…in spite of extraordinary pressure to do otherwise, the Archbishop of Canterbury has managed to achieve his stated goal of a Lambeth Conference of reflection rather than resolutions.

“The long predicted coup d'état that was going to emerge from this Lambeth Conference and vote the Americans and Canadians out of the Anglican Communion failed to materialize. There is much to be grateful for in that.”

Susan Russel also created this interesting photo album showing a great deal of grassroots activism in the Communication Centre, along with other lively behind-the-scene snapshots, during the Conference.

Photo republished from Susan Russell's Lambeth Conference Photo Blog

Acting as “a faithful witness of God's inclusive love to the Episcopal Church and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community”, Integrity USA also made effective use of citizen media in The Lambeth Witness, a daily publication from and about the Canterbury event managed by the coalition Inclusive Church Network.

Photo at top is of Caterbury Cathedral, by Sarah Hecht, republished under Creative Commons license.

SciDev.Net's conference blog reports that:

“An issue widely discussed in the AIDS 2008 conference is the fact that several countries deny the entry, stay or residence of HIV-positive people because of their HIV status.

According to the publication Entry denied, published by UNAIDS in partnership with other organisations and distributed at the conference, at least 67 countries are on the list of those that deny the entry to people living with HIV/AIDS.”

Mexico, where AIDS 2008 was held, has no traveling restrictions for people with HIV/AIDS, but 65 or so other nations enforce some degree of restriction on the estimated 33 million people living with HIV globally. Seven nations, according to the European AIDS Treatment Group, impose a complete entry ban on HIV-positive people: Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Sudan, South Korea, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Countries with such restrictions often argue that it helps protect public health and avoid costs associated with treating HIV-positive people from other nations.

David Cozac, who blogged about the human rights sessions at AIDS 2008, says that experts disagreed with such arguments.

“During a session on travel restrictions for people living with HIV, participants decried the fact that although there is no evidence that travel restrictions have a positive public health impact, 67 countries still have restrictions in place.”

One of the countries with such restrictions is China. Despite hopes that China would lift its HIV-related traveling restrictions before the Olympics, the country has maintained them, even during the games. Under their current regulations, tourists and short-term visitors must declare their HIV status, and those planning to stay long-term must undergo a blood test; if found to be HIV-positive, they are refused entry.

Denise Patterson, blogging from Thailand, comments on China's ban of visitors with AIDS and other health conditions during the Olympics:

” A ban on people with mental illnesses or sexually transmitted diseases? That is very amusing. If the Chinese government believes they can control every aspect of the Olympics, they are sadly mistaken…

… According to 2007 statistics, published by the World Health Organization, the HIV/AIDS rate in China is 2.9% of the population. The ‘ban' doesn't seem to be working.”

However, China may be responding to the pressure. China Daily reports that Hao Yang, deputy director of the ministry's disease control and prevention bureau, told the publication at AIDS 2008 that the two-decade-old HIV/AIDS travel ban will likely be lifted in 2009.

China may be following America's lead for change. In July U.S. President George W. Bush signed legislation to repeal the statutory ban on entry into the U.S. for HIV-positive tourists, students, and immigrants, taking the first step needed to eliminate the ban. However, for the ban to be completely lifted, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must now remove HIV from a list of diseases that prevent people from entering the U.S. HIV is currently still on the list.

Kevinf, posting on ToTheCenter.com, writes about the positive reaction to this repeal.

“Many AIDS experts and rights activists find the new legislation to be a cause for celebration. Previously, travel restrictions could cause more trouble than they prevented, causing people with HIV to lie about their condition. It was discriminatory and would also lead to many of the infected to lie.”

David Munar posts this video of Rev. Christo Greyling of World Vision International, where he discusses why such travel bans are detrimental and raises questions about the U.S. repeal.

LauraK, blogging for AIDS 2008's youth site, warns that the U.S. repeal is a major step, but not the final one.

“It is now up to the Secretary of Health to change regulations to reflect the new legislation. HIV must be taken off of the list of diseases that mean inadmissibility to the United States, but Congresswoman [Barbara] Lee is confident that this will happen soon.”

She goes on to share how such travel restrictions have impacted those with HIV, as she witnessed at an AIDS 2008 questioning period.

“One man came forward to express the sense of betrayal felt by those forced out by the restrictions, he had personal experience as a US citizen living in Canada with a partner who is HIV-positive. He still loved his country, he told the panel, but he was ashamed and angry with his government for initiating the repressive legislation that forced him to choose between his country and his partner, as well as for taking 20 years to address it.”

Photo of Red Traveling Suitcase by tofutti break on Flickr.

A few miles from where I live is the 20,000 member Saddleback mega church. And tonight, its pastor Rev. Rick Warren is interviewing both senators Obama and McCain. The format is that each will spend about 60 minutes on stage alone with Rev. Warren (I would've preferred all three to be on the stage at the same time, but I am sure that was opposed by both parties), and that they will get the same questions asked. And Rev. Warren assured us that Sen. McCain will be in a ‘cone of silence,' while Sen. Obama gets to go first, thanks to a coin flip.

“We got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other,” said the good reverend who claims to be friends with both senators.

CNN televised the entire two-hour event live. And McCain won Round-1!

Some highlights included Obama's admission that Jesus Christ died for his sins, that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, but that he would not support a constitutional amendment with that definition, evil does exist and that we should confront it but with an approach of humility, would not have nominated Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, and if you're making $150,000 a year or less as a family you'd be considered middle class or poor, depending on the region (to which Rev. Warren responded, “in this region you'd be poor”). But in my opinion, did not eloquently answer the question as to why he wants to be President, other than repeat the same mantra of politics and Washington is so broken, and that he has the “ability to build bridges across partisan lines, racial, regional lines, to get people to work on some common sense solutions to critical issues.” We all know what happened the last time a candidate promised reaching across partisan lines.

McCain then came onto the stage and the two candidates briefly exchanged pleasantries. In fact, Obama told McCain to “go get'em.”

McCain's greatest line might have been “serve a cause greater than your self-interest.” Or “by a strange coincidence, I was not elected Miss Congeniality again to the U.S. Senate,” when he responded to the party loyalty versus America's best interest question.

McCain's responses included the fact that religion and prayer played a very important part during his captive years in Vietnam, a baby is entitled to human rights at the moment of conception, marriage is between one man and one woman, and as a federalist, states should make their own decisions, until and unless a federal court decided that one state had to observe what another state decided, he would not favor a constitutional amendment to enforce the definition of marriage (of course both candidates reinstated their allegiance to the recognition of union between same sex couples and that they too are entitled to the same rights as married couples), evil should be defeated, radical Islamic extremism must be dealt with, with all due respect would not have nominated Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens, because he thinks they legislate from the bench and not adhere to the Constitution, believes in choice in competition when it comes to schools — public versus private, and school vouchers, etc., some of the richest people he's ever known in his life “are the most unhappy,” ‘rich' should be defined “by a home, a good job, an education, and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one we inherited,” doesn't want to take money from the rich, instead wants everyone to be rich — keep taxes low and not raise them, increase revenue, and cut spending.

McCain made the most anti-Russia statement I've heard to date as it relates to killing of innocent people, human rights abuses against Georgia, and others in that region and democracy. As to why he wants to be President, McCain believes America's best days are ahead of us, that he'll be the President of every American, and he'll always put America first.

Round-1 goes to McCain, hands down, in my opinion . . .

Watch Larry King Live on CNN Monday night as he interviews Reverend Warren.