wfn.org | Stated clerk clarifies status of same-sex unions after defeat of

[PCUSA.NEWS@ecunet.org]

Note #6467 from PCUSA NEWS to PRESBYNEWS:

Amendment O
28-March-2001
01108

Stated clerk clarifies status of same-sex unions after defeat of Amendment O

Same-sex union ceremonies must be distinct from marriage, Kirkpatrick says

by Jerry L. Van Marter

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the General
Assembly, has issued an "advisory opinion" explaining current Presbyterian
Church (USA) policy on same-sex union ceremonies.

	Kirkpatrick's March 26 statement was accompanied by an announcement that
Amendment O - the so-called "same-sex union" amendment - officially has been
defeated in an up-or-down vote of the denomination's 173 presbyteries.

	Kirkpatrick reaffirmed church policy that, because marriage is defined by
The Book of Order as between a man and a woman, ministers and sessions "may
not utilize liturgies for Christian marriage or the recognition of civil
marriage in ceremonies for same-sex couples."

	On the other hand, Kirkpatrick - citing a ruling last year by the General
Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) - said pastors and sessions may
provide pastoral care to same-sex couples in the form of worship services
that "celebrate a loving, caring and committed relationship," but "must
advise such couples that such a service does not constitute a marriage and
may not be held out as such."

	It was the PJC's ruling that prompted the submission of Amendment O to last
year's General Assembly, which narrowly approved it and sent it to the
presbyteries for ratification or rejection. The amendment would have added a
section W-4.9007 to the Directory for Worship in The Book of Order, stating:
"Scripture and our Confessions teach that God's intention for all people is
to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and
a woman or in chastity in singleness. Church property shall not be used for,
and church officers shall not take part in conducting, any ceremony or event
that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes the
blessing of God upon any relationship that is inconsistent with God's
intention as expressed in the preceding sentence."

	As of March 28, the unofficial tally on Amendment O was 71 presbyteries in
favor and 95 opposed. Eighty-seven votes for or against were needed to
decide the matter.

The full text of Kirkpatrick's statement:

	The Office of the General Assembly has now received official notice of
votes in the negative on Proposed Amendment O from eighty?eight
presbyteries, a majority of the presbyteries of the Church. Therefore, it
does not appear the proposed language will become part of the Directory for
Worship (G-18.0301e). Given all the discussion around the issues since the
212th General Assembly (2000), it seems an appropriate time for the Stated
Clerk of the General Assembly to offer an advisory opinion through this
Polity Reflection about the constitutional status of ceremonies blessing
relationships of persons of the same gender.

	The first thing which must be said is that the definition of Christian
Marriage in W-4.9001 remains as the first word about committed
relationships. It would not have been changed if Amendment O had been
adopted, nor is it changed by the defeat of the proposed language. It may be
helpful to quote W?4.9001 here:

	"Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well?being of
the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a
man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman
are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a
service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a
man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of
faith."

	There are other provisions in the Directory for Worship which clearly
indicate that the marriage liturgy is designed for a celebration of a new
reality as the woman and the man are joined in marriage.

	The church also is concerned about those for whom marriage is not an
appropriate expression of their Christian discipleship. G-4.0403 affirms the
commitment of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to the rich diversity within
its membership and the participation in the life and ministry of the church
of members of different marital conditions among other aspects of diversity
(G?4.0403). So for those for whom singleness is a matter of personal
commitment or a reality to be accepted, the church is committed to their
pastoral care and to guidance in their discipleship.

	As the questions raised over the years, such as the questions addressed by
the General Assembly in 1991 (Minutes, 1991, p. 395), or those addressed by
the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission in 2000 in the Hudson
River Presbytery case (Minutes, 2000, p. 586)*, have made clear, there are
other members of the church who believe that they are called to live out
their Christian discipleship in committed relationships in which the other
person is of the same gender.

	With the interpretation adopted in 1991, the General Assembly declared that
it would not be proper for a minister to perform a same-sex union ceremony
that the ministers determines to be the same as a marriage ceremony.
Similarly, a session should not allow the use of church facilities for such
a ceremony. (cf. footnote below)

	In a remedial case concerning same-sex union ceremonies (Benton, et al. v.
Presbytery of Hudson River, Minutes, 2000, p. 586), the General Assembly
Permanent Judicial Commission found that both the complainants and the
presbytery had applied the authoritative interpretation of 1991
categorically and without distinctions. The General Assembly  Permanent
Judicial Commission went on to apply the authoritative interpretation with
distinctions and reversed the decision of the synod Permanent Judicial
Commission to the extent that the presbytery failed to make the necessary
distinction between same-sex ceremonies that would be inappropriate because
they might be confused with ceremonies of Christian marriage and those that
might be appropriate in the practice of pastoral care of members (ceremonies
in the form and spirit of W?6.3010 and W?6.3011).

	After the Hudson River case, ministers and sessions have the following
guidance:

* They may not utilize liturgies for Christian marriage or the recognition
of civil marriage in ceremonies for same-sex couples.

* They may not perform a ceremony that they consider to be the same as a
marriage ceremony nor may they permit their facilities to be utilized for
any such ceremony. That was the rule before the Hudson River case and before
Amendment "O" was proposed. It is still the rule in the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.)

* They may provide pastoral care in the form of worship services that
"celebrate a loving, caring, and committed relationship" for same-sex
couples (Hudson River), but must also advise such couples that such a
service does not constitute a marriage and may not be held out as such.

	This means that ministers and sessions continue to be responsible to make
appropriate decisions concerning pastoral care for members, all the members
of the church.

________________________________________________

* Footnote: The following is some of the specific guidance offered to the
Church concerning in this matter through the Authoritative Interpretation of
the 193rd General Assembly (1991) and the decision of the General Assembly
Permanent Judicial Commission in 2000 in the Benton, et. al. v. Presbytery
of Hudson River:

	In Benton v. Pby of Hudson River (Minutes, 2000, 586) the General Assembly
Permanent Judicial Commission explicitly affirmed the 1991 Authoritative
Interpretation which stated: "There is no mention in the Book of Order of
same-sex unions (ceremonies). If a same-sex ceremony were considered to be
the equivalent of a marriage ceremony between two persons of the same-sex,
it would not be sanctioned under the Book of Order. In section W-4.9001,
Christian marriage is specifically defined as:

	"[A] covenant through which a man and a woman are   called to live out
together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian
marriage[,] a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each
other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith.
(emphasis added)

	"Inasmuch as the session is responsible and accountable for determination
of the appropriate use of the church building and facilities (G-10.0102n),
it should not allow the use of the church facilities for a same-sex union
ceremony that the session determines to be the same as a marriage ceremony.

	"Likewise, since a Christian marriage performed in accordance with the
Directory for Worship can only involve a covenant between a woman and a man,
it would not be proper for a minister of the Word and Sacrament to perform a
same-sex union ceremony that the minister determines to be the same as a
marriage ceremony." (Minutes, 1991, Part I, pp. 55, 57, 395)

	The Hudson River decision gave some practical  clarification of the
Interpretation: "(This) Authoritative Interpretation clearly assumes that
some same-sex ceremonies could be the equivalent of a marriage ceremony, and
therefore, would contravene the Book of Order, and some might not. A
determinative distinction between a permissible same-sex ceremony and a
marriage ceremony is that the latter confers a new status whereas the former
blesses an existing relationship. The Book of Order makes this theological
distinction concerning marriage in W-4.9004: 'In the name of the triune God
the minister shall declare publicly that the woman and the man are now
joined in marriage.' This and similar pronouncements declaring a new status
are to be reserved for services of marriage."

	In order to further clarify this distinction the Judicial Commission noted
that: "In exercising this judgment, however, ministers and sessions should
take special care to avoid any confusion of such services with services of
Christian marriage. Ministers should not appropriate specific liturgical
forms from services of Christian marriage or services recognizing civil
marriage in the conduct of such ceremonies. They should also instruct
same-sex couples that the service to be conducted does not constitute a
marriage ceremony and should not be held out as such."

	However the Judicial Commission affirmed that ministers and sessions do
have discretion in providing pastoral care to such couples: "Notwithstanding
the above admonitions, the Directory for Worship affirms the value of
worship services in the practice of pastoral care and gives great latitude
to ministers and sessions in addressing the pastoral care of members. A
same-sex ceremony celebrates a loving, caring, and committed relationship.
Therefore, it would be appropriate for this worship occasion to be in the
form and spirit of W-6.3010 and W-6.3011."

	They closed with a clear admonition to the ministers and sessions of the
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) when it wrote: "Such a same-sex ceremony does
not bless any specific act, and this decision should not be construed as an
endorsement of homosexual conjugal practice proscribed by the General
Assembly."

_______________________________________________
pcusaNews mailing list
pcusaNews@pcusa.org

To unsubscribe, go to this web address:
http://pcusa01.pcusa.org/mailman/listinfo/pcusanews