Here's the tone from the "right", as quoted in a Washington Post article:

"I grew up in the Episcopal Church. I hope I don't cry when I talk about this," said a shaken Katrina Wagner, 37, an accountant and member of Truro's vestry, after the congregation's vote was announced. "But the issue is: Are we going to follow Scripture?"

And from the more "progressive" side of the fence, we see some words about being "saddened" that they'll have to fight for the property, but this gem stood out (bold mine):

Other Episcopal leaders said yesterday's vote was not surprising, given the increasingly conservative tilt of the parishes involved. "Frankly, anyone who didn't agree has long since left those parishes. They've been headed that way for years," said Joan Gundersen, president of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh.

This is the phenomenon of projected radicalism I discussed previously, which shows up frequently in leftist rhetoric. You portray someone else as having moved when, in fact, it is your own position which is the new and radical one.

And, via Chris Johnson, left-leaning "Daily Episcopalian" speculates on motives -- is it bigotry? racism? or just having no knowledge whatsoever of content of the bible?

I can suggest three reasons that Bishop Martyn Minns and his flock may have taken this decision. The first is naked bigotry. The second is a willingness to trade the human rights of innocent Africans for a more advantageous position in the battle for control of the Anglican Communion. The third is a profoundly distorted understanding of who Jesus was and what he taught.

I suspect "actively gay bishops not being biblical" is part of reason #3. But "Father Jake" knows the real reason: naked bigotry. "I'll guess #1 is probably the most accurate..."

Conservative Episcopalians have stated repeatedly that they don't view homosexual relations as a legitimate option for Christians, much less a bishop. But there's this huge mystery about their motivations: What motivates them? What psychological or theological deficiency would compel them to disagree? Hard to discern if you won't listen to their own explanations. It must be that they are particularly bad people!

And of course some brave lefty in their local newspaper took pains to bash this group (anonymously, of course) in the same vein for daring to leave the fold:

... the leaders of the Falls Church Episcopal have chosen to stand against the civil authority of the U.S. Constitution that promises equal rights for all, just as happened in all those pulpits that, in the past, denounced what they called the “un-Godly” acts of freeing slaves, ending segregation, or more recently, ending prohibitions on interracial marriage. Church folk experience such hate, emotionally, as a burning righteous indignation.

If this week’s vote results in the departure of Falls Church Episcopal from the Episcopal denomination, the church will go down in infamy as a regrettable and despised bastion of bigotry, prejudice and hatred.... The power of hate can be so strong.

Hey! Who knew by no longer being members of the Episcopalian church, these parishoners were "stand[ing] against the civil authority of the U.S. Constitution"! Honestly, friends, some of these people scare me: They often seem to think the US Constitution prohibits the freedom to worship how and with whom one pleases.

And again we see that the only possible motivation allowed could be hatred -- it couldn't be that they were simply trying to be obedient to their faith, as best they were taught and understand it.

Bypass the offered explanation, utterly fail to consider it, and instead replace it with assumptions and allegations of evil motives.