Presbyterian Lesbian & Gay Marriage

Just when we thought the lesbian and gay marriage "issue" was 
settled, for the time being, in the PCUSA, it flared up in 
Hudson River Presbytery.

We last focused on lesbian and gay marriage in the Presbyterian 
Church in our March-April 1997 *Update.*  For historical details, 
please see that issue.  Here are the two standing statements of 
the General Assembly:

                   General Assembly Statements

     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. -- *Affirmed by the General Assembly 
     in 1991 and 1992.*

[I have always enjoyed this classic "decently and in order" 
statement.  First it defines "Christian marriage" in such a way 
that the marriage of two men or two women can in no way be 
considered "the same" as its definition of "Christian" marriage, 
which "can only involve a covenant between a woman and a man"; 
then it says if they are *not* determined to be equivalent or the 
same, then the *Book of Order* has nothing to say, and ministers 
and congregation may do as they will!  I've always thought one 
solution is to consider lesbian and gay marriages to be 
*superior* to so-called "Christian" marriages because they are 
purely religious ceremonies celebrating covenants of 
faithfulness before God and our faith communities, as opposed to 
the "civil contract" which lies at the heart of Presbyterian 
definition of so-called "Christian" marriage (see the next 
G.A. statement!) -- JDA]

Next, in 1994-1995, came an attempt to amend the church's 
constitution to "prohibit the blessing of same-sex unions by 
Presbyterian ministers," but this proposed amendment was defeated 
by the presbyteries.

Finally in 1996, the G.A. affirmed full civil rights for 
lesbian and gay marriages (but don't call them that!):

     "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 official position of the General Assembly calls for all 
the civil rights of marriage, just don't call it "marriage"! -- 
JDA.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                    The Hudson River Charges

September 28, 1998

From: Bethlehem Presbyterian Church, of New Windsor, NY

To: Elder Harriet Sandmeier, Stated Clerk, Presbytery of Hudson 
River

We enclose a Copy of an article that ran in the *Rockland Journal 
News* on August 9th of this year. The information reflected in the 
article is a matter of grave concern to the Pastor of this 
Church, its entire session and to other pastors and sessions in 
this presbytery. We believe that G-8.0300, entitled "Property 
used contrary to Constitution," applies to the use of the 
property of a church of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as a site 
for same-sex wedding ceremonies, by whatever name they may be 
called. As the newspaper article demonstrates, such ceremonies 
are perceived by the secular public and by the participants as 
equivalent to marriages. The Stated Clerk of the General 
Assembly, in PCUSA Polity Reflections Note 18, after quoting the 
definition of marriage found in W-4.9001 (as a contract or 
covenant between a woman and a man) rendered the following 
opinion: "The plain language excludes covenanting ceremonies or 
holy unions which are not consistent with this definition. Under 
G-11.0103s, presbytery is authorized to assume jurisdiction in 
any case in which it determines that a Session cannot exercise 
its authority. That section further provides that, following a 
thorough investigation, with opportunity for persons to be heard, 
if the presbytery determines that the session of a particular 
church is unable or unwilling to manage wisely the affairs of its 
church the presbytery may appoint an administrative Commission 
(G-9.0503) with the full power of the session.

We believe that the repeated use of the South Presbyterian Church 
property for the site of same sex ceremonies indicates that the 
session of the church is "unable or unwilling to manage wisely 
the affairs of its church." We believe this is very serious 
because the use of the church for same sex ceremonies violates 
the Constitution of the PCUSA. That such ceremonies are in 
violation of W-4.9001 is silent [sic ???]. This is underscored by 
the Stated Clerk's opinion quoted above. The consequences of 
holding such ceremonies on church property are far-reaching in 
light of G-8.0300.

We believe that the session has failed in its fiduciary duty to 
assure that church property, which is held in trust for the PCUSA 
(G-8.0200), not be used for purposes contrary to the Constitution 
of the PCUSA. We likewise believe that if the presbytery does 
not take corrective action, it too will have failed both as to 
its fiduciary duty under civil law and in its responsibilities 
under the Book of Order

We believe that ministers of the Word and Sacrament of the 
PCUSA, who, whether in a PCUSA church or otherwise, officiate 
at same-sex ceremonies are in violation of their ordination vows, 
specifically G-14.0405b(5): "Will you be governed by our church's 
polity, and will you abide by its discipline?" and (7): "Do you 
promise to further the peace, unity and purity of the church?" We 
believe that such action is in violation of G-60108(b): "It Is to 
be recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate or officer 
of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 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 as long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in 
that body"

We also believe that such action violates G-11.0403a, which 
requires that "The ministry of continuing members (of Presbytery) 
shall be in demonstrable conformity with the mission of God's 
people in the world as set forth in Holy Scripture, the Book of 
Confessions, and the Book of Order of this church." The Book of 
Order is part of the Constitution of the PCUSA. Its 
requirements constitute the highest "orders" of the church. Under 
G-11.0301t(2), the presbytery is charged with responsibility for 
seeing that orders of higher governing bodies are "observed and 
carried out." This is not a personal attempt to hurt any 
individual or church but we believe that unless the Constitution 
is adhered to, we will find ourselves facing chaos.

Therefore, we hereby specifically request that presbytery take 
the following actions:

(1) Counsel and, as necessary discipline, the pastors and session 
of South Presbyterian Church in Dobbs Ferry, with respect to 
their obligations under the provisions of the Book of Order 
referred to above, toward the end that the Pastors refrain from 
officiating at same-sex ceremonies as long as they continue to be 
members of this presbytery or ministers of the Word and Sacrament 
in the PCUSA, and that the session not permit such ceremonies 
on the church site.

(2) In the discharge of the fiduciary duties of the presbytery, 
to take all necessary steps to preclude any further use of the 
property of South Presbyterian Church as a site of same-sex 
ceremonies.

(3) To conduct an investigation, pursuant to G-11.0103s, and, if 
necessary, assume original jurisdiction under that section to 
ensure that the property of South Presbyterian Church not be used 
as a site of same-sex ceremonies.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

                           The Outcome

            Hudson River Presbytery Affirms "Freedom"
              to Conduct Same-Sex Union Ceremonies

                     by Jerry L. Van Marter

White Plains, NY -- By a vote of 107-35, Hudson River Presbytery 
affirmed on Feb. 6 "the freedom of any session to allow its 
ministers to perform ceremonies of holy union between persons of 
the same gender."

The Rev. C. Fred Jenkins, associate stated clerk of the General 
Assembly, told the Presbyterian News Service: "Such a position is 
nothing new. What is new is a governing body taking formal action 
on such a position."

The Hudson River Presbytery stipulated that its action "reflects 
our understanding at this time that these ceremonies do not 
constitute marriage as defined by 'The Book of Order.'"

Indeed, Jenkins pointed out in a letter to an unnamed person 
dated Dec. 1, 1998: "The Directory for Worship, at W-4.9001, 
defines marriage as 'a civil contract between a woman and a man.' 
Technically, therefore, a same-sex union ceremony could not be a 
marriage ceremony."

In 1991, National Capital Presbytery sought guidance as to 
whether same-sex ceremonies were in violation of W-4.9001. The 
1991 General Assembly issued an "authoritative guidance" that "the 
session should not allow the use of the church facilities, and a 
minister of Word and Sacrament should not officiate at a ceremony 
determined to be the same as a marriage ceremony."

A proposed amendment to "The Book of Order" flatly prohibiting 
ministers from participating in same-sex union ceremonies was 
rejected by the presbyteries in 1995.

"I think that God's tears are a lot less every time we affirm 
monogamy over promiscuity," the Rev. Steve Geckeler, the pastor of 
the Presbyterian Church in White Plains (the host church for the 
meeting), told the Associated Press after the Hudson River vote. 
Geckeler is married with children, and has not performed any 
same-sex unions.

Hudson River Presbytery became embroiled in the issue three 
months ago, when Bethlehem Presbyterian Church in New Windsor, 
NY, filed a complaint with the presbytery against South 
Presbyterian Church in nearby Dobbs Ferry. South Church openly 
hosts same-sex union ceremonies.

The resolution adopted by the presbytery grew out of the 
investigation of the complaint against South Church.

Jenkins said "it is the position of the Office of Constitutional 
Services that all Presbyterians and governing bodies abide by 'The 
Book of Order.'" Any adjudication of the matter in Hudson River 
Presbytery, he added, will have to await the filing of a 
complaint -- either against the presbytery for taking the action, 
or against a session or minister for conducting a same-sex union 
ceremony.

Action against the presbytery would be heard first by the Synod 
of the Northeast's Permanent Judicial Commission. Action against a 
session or minister would be heard by the presbytery's commission.

Jenkins speculated that the Hudson River Presbytery's action will 
probably spark more overtures to the General Assembly proposing 
an explicit prohibition of same-sex union ceremonies in 
Presbyterian churches and by Presbyterian ministers. -- 
Presbyterian News Service.

                         Also in Florida

A similar case erupted in the Presbytery of Tampa Bay, when the 
session of Northeast Presbyterian Church of St. Petersburg went 
after Good Samaritan Church, a More Light congregation in 
Pinellas Park.  Good Samaritan pastor Dr. Harold Brockus reported 
that his congregation has been able withstand this attack -- the 
Presbytery investigating committee voted unanimously not to 
proceed against them.  Unlike the Hudson River case, which got 
early coverage in the *New York Times*, the Tampa Bay case has 
not attracted national attention.

Good Samaritan Church considers the celebration of holy unions 
to be an essential part of its ministry for all persons.  In its 
response to the complaint, it noted that "Jesus was harassed by 
those who wanted to limit and control his ministry.  Paul was 
brought to trial in Jerusalem by those who wanted to limit his 
ministry.  Complainant's request to limit respondent's ministry is 
foreign to our sense of calling."