wfn.org | Judicial Decisions Permit Same-Sex 'Unions,' Ministerial Candidacy

[PCUSA NEWS <pcusa.news@ecunet.org>]

of Openly Gay Man 
23-November-1999 
99394 
 
    Judicial Decisions Permit Same-Sex `Unions,' 
    Ministerial Candidacy of Openly Gay Man 
 
    Synod PJC's split-decision rulings turn on definitions of words 
 
    by John Filiatreau 
 
LOUISVILLE, Ky.--In separate cases hinging on contested definitions of 
terms - "union" and "marriage" in one, "candidate" and "inquirer" in the 
other - a synod judicial panel of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has 
dismissed complaints against two presbyteries that had been accused of 
"irregularity" in cases having to do with homosexuals' participation in 
church activities. 
 
    In one case, the Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) of the Synod of 
the Northeast ruled on Nov. 22 that sessions may permit their ministers to 
conduct ceremonies of "holy union" for same-sex couples, and to use church 
property for such services, if they make clear that these "unions" are not 
the same as marriages. 
 
    In the other case, the same PJC ruled on the same day that the criteria 
for ordination to church office - including the Book of Order's requirement 
that ministers "live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage 
between a man and a woman, or (in) chastity in singleness" - do not apply 
to someone who wishes merely to be considered for the ministry. "While a 
candidate must be able to meet the requirements of G-6.0106b as a condition 
for ordination," the panel said, "a presbytery may receive an inquirer who 
may ... move into compliance ... as a candidate." 
 
                           State of the Union 
 
    In the "holy union" case, which involves a complaint filed against the 
Presbytery of Hudson River, the PJC ruled that, because same-sex unions do 
not constitute "marriage," they are not forbidden by the Book of Order. 
 
    If such services are to be prohibited, the court said, it should be 
done through legislation, not by constitutional interpretation. "Permanent 
Judicial Commissions are not legislative bodies," it pointed out in its 
majority ruling. "The proper method for amending the Constitution requires 
the General Assembly to submit a proposed amendment to the presbyteries for 
their affirmative or negative votes." 
 
    A proposed constitutional amendment explicitly banning same-sex unions 
in Presbyterian churches and by Presbyterian ministers was passed by the 
1995 General Assembly but was rejected by a majority vote of the 
presbyteries. 
 
    The 7-3 majority ruled that, "Because the plain language of the motion 
adopted by Respondent Presbytery states that it is not authorizing marriage 
ceremonies between persons of the same sex, we find (the) arguments offered 
by the complainants unpersuasive." 
 
    The panel concluded that a controversial motion passed by the 
presbytery last January - affirming "the freedom of any session to allow 
its ministers to perform ceremonies of holy union ... between persons of 
the same gender" - is not contrary to fundamental Presbyterian belief and 
practice. 
 
    The case arose in August 1998 after a story appeared in a New York 
newspaper about a same-sex union ceremony that had taken place at South 
Presbyterian Church in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. Subsequently, the session of 
nearby Bethlehem Presbyterian Church asked the stated clerk of the 
presbytery to "take action to investigate, counsel, and as necessary 
discipline the pastors and session" of South Church, and to forbid same-sex 
union ceremonies. 
 
    Referring to the complainant's argument that section W-4.9001 of the 
Book of Order "states a constitutional priority that the Christian 
understanding of marriage is not to be diminished," the PJC said that that 
provision only "addresses additions to the marriage ceremony and does not 
apply to ceremonies of same-sex union." 
 
    The 1991 General Assembly prohibited the use of church property for 
same-sex ceremonies "that the session determines to be the same as a 
marriage ceremony." The issue before the synod court was whether same-sex 
unions are the equivalent of marriage, which is defined in Presbyterian law 
as a union of a man and a woman. 
 
    Julius Poppinga, counsel for the complainants, issued a statement in 
which he said the PJC majority "failed to act like a court" and ignored 
expert testimony "establishing that to bestow the church's blessing, in a 
worship service, on same-sex conjugal relationships is incompatible with 
the church's standards of worship and of conduct." 
 
    Jeff Halvorsen, whose same sex union was blessed in Dobbs Ferry, told 
the Presbyterian News Service, "I'm very pleased, very happy that they've 
made this ruling, which means that there is still a possibility of having 
gay unions in the Presbyterian Church." 
 
    Poppinga, a Presbyterian elder, said the decision "certainly" will be 
appealed. 
 
    He mentioned two potential grounds for an appeal: The PJC's vote to bar 
testimony from "the two most knowledgeable witnesses - the pastors who 
conducted the ceremonies giving rise to the case in the first place"; and 
the fact that one of the members of the commission "is herself one of the 
ministers who has been conducting the same-sex weddings at issue." 
 
    "She did not sit on the case," Poppinga said, "but the appearance of an 
internally conflicted court, unable objectively to hear and weigh the 
evidence, hangs over this decision like a dark cloud." 
 
    Harriet Sandmeier, the presbytery's stated clerk, said she doesn't 
regard the decision as a victory for anyone. 
 
    "I feel no joy about this," she said. "In fact, I'm feeling waves of 
sadness. I'm saddened by the very fact that we ended up in a courtroom. I 
would hope that we would be able to find other ways to resolve our 
differences. 
 
    "The process clearly was followed. Presbyterian polity was adhered to," 
Sandmeier said. "It's fairly clear that an appeal will go forward, and we 
are ready to respond. ... But there is no sense of victory. Just a renewed 
commitment to make every attempt possible to face this issue ... and a hope 
that we can go forward seeking to discern (God's will) rather than to 
judge." 
 
    The PJC majority concluded that same-sex services do not "impermissibly 
simulate Christian marriage." 
 
    In a dissenting opinion, the Rev. Dr. D. Dean Weaver and the Rev. Craig 
C. Kerewich said the fact that the Book of Order lacks specific references 
to same-sex unions "should not be interpreted as an endorsement of these 
ceremonies." They added, "Because a same-sex union is a form of homosexual 
practice and homosexual practice is sin, the blessing of such an activity 
by a Minister of Word and Sacrament would (be) unconstitutional and against 
the policies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)." 
 
    In a separate dissent, the Rev. Fred L. Denson, the commission's 
moderator, wrote: "Complainants have met their burden of proof by showing 
that the Presbytery approved the contested action and by presenting 
un-rebutted evidence that homosexual practice is sin. ... My conclusion is 
independent of the issue of whether a holy union is the same as a 
marriage." 
 
    The complaint was filed after the presbytery voted 105-35 on June 10 to 
authorize sessions to allow their ministers to conduct same-sex unions. The 
ruling holds that the session's action and the presbytery's affirmation of 
it do not "authorize marriages or weddings between persons of the same 
sex." 
 
    Arguments in the case focused on two issues: What constitutes 
marriage?; and, How does the "fidelity/chastity" clause (amendment 
G-6.0106b) of the PC(USA)'s Book of Order apply to same-sex unions? 
 
    Sharon Davidson, counsel for the presbytery, argued that "holy unions" 
are not marriages, and that the fidelity/chastity clause applies only to 
ordination, not to a rite of union between two people of the same sex. She 
said the PC(USA)'s ordination standard does not apply to homosexual church 
members unless and until they become candidates for ordination to church 
office. 
 
    George Cisneros, whose exchange of vows with Jeff Halvorsen gave rise 
to the case, said yesterday: "Of course I'm happy with the decision and 
regard it as a victory. Anything that's not derogatory is a victory." 
 
                        Standards for Ordination 
 
    In the case having to do with a homosexual candidate for ordination, 
the PJC ruled in favor of the Presbytery of West Jersey, commenting that 
the issues in the case "are more appropriately raised in connection with 
the final assessment of a candidate's `readiness to begin ministry'" than 
with a preliminary stage of the process - like the one that candidate 
Graham Van Keuren was in last March. 
 
    The West Jersey Presbytery voted 81-61 to receive van Keuren as a 
candidate for ordination despite his written and verbal statements that he 
is "an openly gay man" who intends "to participate in a fully sexual way in 
any future relationship." 
 
    Van Keuren, who had disclosed his sexual orientation during a 1998 
meeting of the presbytery's Committee on Preparation for the Ministry 
(CPM), was applying for a change in status from "inquirer" to "candidate." 
 
    The Rev. William F. Getman, a member of the CPM, said the committee 
talked with van Keuren about his sexual orientation and his intentions. "He 
described himself as an avowed, practicing homosexual, but he indicated 
that at that time he was not practicing," Getman testified during the Nov 5 
trial before the PJC. Getman said the committee told van Keuren that if he 
insisted on being sexually active as a homosexual, he would not be eligible 
for ordination under the denomination's "fidelity/chastity clause." 
 
    During an examination on March 16, van Keuren said, "I understand that 
I am called into a loving, same-sex, monogamous relationship." When he was 
asked, "Will you practice active sex in a same-sex relationship?," he 
replied, "I intend to participate in a fully sexual way in any future 
relationship." 
 
    The presbytery "took action to receive the inquirer as a candidate," 
and John S. Sheldon and other concerned members of the presbytery 
challenged that decision. 
 
    Gary R. Griffith, the attorney for the complainants, issued a press 
release in which he said: "Although the Permanent Judicial Commission ... 
reaffirmed well-settled standards for ordination, ...we believe that the 
decision ignores the constitution of the church as a whole. The integrity 
of the ordination process is weakened in this accommodation to the 
candidate." 
 
    The PJC ruled that: 
 
    * G-6.0106a, which says ministers' "manner of life should be a 
demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world," does 
not apply to "someone moving from inquiry to candidacy"; 
 
    * Although van Keuren "is not prepared to meet the requirements of" 
G-6.0106b, the "fidelity/chastity" amendment, "a presbytery may receive an 
inquirer who may still move into compliance while being nurtured in the 
covenant relationship as a candidate"; 
 
    * Although van Keuren is similarly "not prepared to meet the 
requirements" of G-6.0108b, which says that "conscience is captive to the 
word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church," and "can be 
applied to an inquirer or candidate," the responsibility for determining 
"whether a person has departed from the essentials of Reformed faith and 
polity" rests with the candidate's session"; 
 
     * The presbytery "did not act erroneously" in handling van Keuren's 
case; and, 
 
     * The complainants' allegation that the presbytery "acted irregularly 
by allowing presbyters to violate their vows and minister members of 
presbytery to violate their criteria for continuing ministry" in handling 
the case is without merit, and, in any event, "remedial cases do not 
provide the appropriate forum for addressing accusations against 
individuals." 
 
    In a written dissent, Weaver said the presbytery "acted irregularly and 
therefore was erroneous when it took action to receive a candidate under 
care who was not ready to proceed to candidacy. He noted that the Book of 
Order's G-6.0108b clause says that, "in becoming a candidate ... one 
chooses to exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her 
conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of 
the church so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office." 
 
    Weaver also cited a precedent case that he said established that "an 
individual's intended behavior may disqualify him or her for ordination." 
 
    Griffith, the complainants' attorney, told the Presbyterian News 
Service that he was "disappointed" with the decision. 
 
    "There's no reasoning in the decision, no analysis," he said. "I 
expected there would be cogent analysis of the issues. I expected a higher 
level of scholarship." 
 
    John Reisner, attorney for West Jersey Presbytery told the Presbyterian 
News Service in a Nov. 23 interview that he believed the decision was 
appropriate.  "It recognizes the covenanting and counseling relationship 
the presbytery has with its inquirers and candidates," he said. 
 
    Griffith said an appeal is "under very strong consideration." 
 
    Van Keuren told the Presbyterian News Service yesterday: "I was pleased 
with the decision. The presbytery has seen some promise in me for the 
ministry, and has approved my move from inquirer status to candidacy. This 
decision means that process can go forward, and naturally I'm very pleased 
about that." 

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  This note sent by Office of News Services, 
  Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
  to the World Faith News list <wfn-news@wfn.org>.
  For additional information about this news story,
  call 502-569-5493 or send e-mail to PCUSA.News@pcusa.org

  On the web:  http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/

  If you have a question about this mailing list, 
  send queries to wfn@wfn.org