There has been some controversy in National Capital Presbytery over whether Presbyterian ministers may perform lesbian and gay holy unions in Presbyterian Churches. So the Presbytery requested an "interpretation regarding use of church facilities, and whether a minister is in violation of *Book of Order* with regard to same sex unions." The Advisory Committee on the Constitution rendered the decision requested, in rather lawyerlike language, quoting the *Book of Order* to say that a "Christian marriage" is a "covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship." Adding special emphasis to "a man and a woman," they proceeded to say that if the "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*." Therefore, if the ceremony is not the same as a "Christian marriage," it may be performed at the discretion of minister and session.

Even if one considers a marriage between a man and an woman and a holy union between two men or two women to be spiritually equivalent, there are some obvious differences. To name only two, a so-called Christian marriage is always, at least in the United States and in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), sanctioned by the state; holy unions so far do not have such sanction in most cases. Second, there is the obvious difference in the gender of the primary participants. Whether the holy union between two men or two women will ever be or ought to be "the equivalent of a marriage ceremony" remains to be explored.

While PLGC would of course prefer a positive affirmation of lesbian and gay relationships, it is pleased that the General Assembly has handed the responsibility for exploring such affirmation to local congregations and ministers.

For interested legalists, here is the actual text of the decision, as offered by the Advisory Committee on the Constitution and approved by the General Assembly:

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 [by the committee!])

Inasmuch as the session is responsible and accountable for determination of the appropriate use of the church buildings 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.

By a yes vote of 84.1%, the Assembly accepted the recommendation of the Committee on Worship and Sacraments (and of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution) "That the overture not be adopted, with comment" [which follows]:

The Advisory Committee on the Constitution has previously spoken on this. We refer to the action of the 203rd General Assembly (1991) regarding the *Book of Order* and same sex unions: ... [which was quoted just above!] -- Minutes, (1991), Part I, p. 395.

[Note inserted into electronic version of this *Update*: As of 4-21-95, the "Same-Sex Union Amendment Is Defeated" -- *News Briefs Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)*, April 21, 1995. -- Hallelujah, Praise the Lord! -- JDA]

Louisville, KY. -- With just over half the Presbyterian Church's 171 presbyteries reporting, the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit the blessing of same-sex unions by Presbyterian ministers is headed toward defeat.

As of March 6, the official tally (kept by the Office of the General Assembly) is 40 presbyteries in favor of the amendment, 38 opposed, and 11 "no action." In order to pass, the amendment must receive an affirmative vote by 86 presbyteries.

"If this pattern of voting continues, the amendment will fail because it has received a plurality but not a majority of affirmative votes," said the Rev. Fred Jenkins, director of constitutional services in the stated clerk's office.

The proposed amendment was initiated by the Presbytery of Southern New England. It would have added a sentence to the Directory for Worship provision on marriage (W-4.9001): "Therefore, it is inappropriate for ministers to participate in the blessing of any same-sex union."

When the proposal reached the floor of last year's General Assembly, an amendment to it was approved changing the wording to "it is not permitted for ministers to participate in the blessing of any same-sex union." [See the August 1994 *Update* for the full story! -- JDA]

The Advisory Committee on the Constitution advised the Assembly not to approve the amendment on the grounds that "it adds nothing that is not already in the *Book of Order*."

Currently denomination policy, adopted by the 1991 General Assembly, states that sessions should not allow the use of their churches for same-sex union ceremonies if the session determines the ceremony to be the same as a marriage ceremony. Likewise, the policy states that "it would not be proper for a minister to perform a same-sex ceremony that the minister determines to be the same as a marriage ceremony."

The same-gender marriage issue came to the 208th General Assembly by way of a commissioners' resolution (numbered 95-10) "on equal access to the civil status of marriage," which had been submitted to the 207th General Assembly in Cincinnati by the Revs. Monica Styron (Northern New England) and Larry Grimm (Denver). The original resolution had been drafted by PLGC's communications secretary, Jim Anderson. The text of the original resolution was printed in the March 1996 *More Light Update*.

This resolution went to the Assembly Committee on National and Urban Issues. It was accompanied by an "Advice & Counsel Memorandum" from the standing "Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP)," which advocated adoption. The ACSWP said:

"Without equal access to the civil status of marriage, gay and lesbian persons in committed relationships cannot file joint tax returns, cannot inherit each other's estates, cannot share joint insurance policies, cannot share benefits from annuities, pension plans, and Social Security. They cannot partake in health benefits unless specifically written into a labor contract, or under their terms of employment. They cannot jointly adopt children, take family leave for bereavement or illness, or make decisions for burial on the death of a partner. These are benefits that married couples take for granted in society, and are the basis for patterns of family life as we know them.

**"Two generations ago interfaith civil marriages were banned and one generation ago, interracial civil marriages were forbidden. The same arguments to prevent such civil unions are given today against same sex couples.** (Emphasis added by JDA!)

"... [citing James B. Nelson in his book, *Embodiment* (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1978)] we believe that Jesus embodied the righteousness of God that desires only just and loving relationships between people, not relationships that give rights to some and not to others. ... As Christians, we believe that we who affirm our faith in Jesus Christ are also called to embody God's love and justice in all of our relationships -- within Christ's family, the church, and with the whole world.

"Jesus demonstrated throughout his ministry that righteousness consisted of showing justice and mercy to those who experience it the least. He reached out to those who were marginal, rejected, oppressed, stigmatized, powerless, and suffering. He told us that when we do justice and love to the least one among us, we are doing love and justice to him.

"We recommend approval of Commissioners' Resolution 95-10. It affirms the past policies of General Assemblies in regard to the granting of civil rights to homosexuals. When two men or two women seek civil recognition of their commitment and union, their behavior demonstrates love, and a profound desire for a monogamous covenantal relationship in which to express it.

"In 1991, the *Minority Report on Human Sexuality* said, 'One thing that seems clear to us is that there is something in the human spirit that seems to work best in monogamous covenantal relationships. Many people whose sexual orientation is toward those of the same gender are not promiscuous and are living together faithfully -- and at least as permanently -- as many people who are living in a heterosexual marriage ...' (PC(USA), p. 128)."

The final resolution adopted by the committee, and by the full assembly, was a compromise. It was approved by the committee by a 24-14 vote, and by the full assembly by 53% to 46%. It reads:

"Affirming the Presbyterian church's historic definition of marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman, yet recognizing that committed same-sex partners seek equal civil liberties in a contractual relationship with all the civil rights of married couples, we urge the Office of the Stated Clerk to explore the feasibility of entering friend- of-the-court briefs and supporting legislation in favor of giving civil rights to same-sex partners.

-- So the PC(USA) policy is: Full civil rights -- just don't use THE WORD! -- JDA