Hudson River Presbytery OKs same-sex ‘holy union’
The Presbyterian Layman, February 2, 1999
The Journal News headline
dated Saturday, January 30, 1999 The Hudson River Presbytery, which has one of the steepest membership declines among Presbyterian Church (USA) presbyteries, has approved a recommendation to allow clergy to participate in “holy unions” of same-sex partnerships and to use church property when performing the ceremonies.
Commissioners to the presbytery voted 105 to 35 in favor of the motion. That vote was consistent with the Hudson River Presbytery’s 160-32 vote in 1997 against the proposed constitutional amendment, which was adopted, that required candidates for church offices to maintain fidelity in marriage AND chastity in singleness. Hudson River also voted 154-24 in favor of the defeated “Amendment A” proposal that would have eliminated fidelity/chastity from ordination standards.
Hudson River Presbytery is in the Synod of the Northeast, possibly the most theologically liberal region in the nation for the PCUSA – and also the region with the steepest decline in membership in the PCUSA.
Vote is challenged
The majority vote for same-sex “holy unions” did not go unchallenged. A minority protest was based on “our conscious belief that homosexual behavior is contrary to the will of God, is inconsistent with Scripture, and is a direct violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). To allow ministers to bless unions of same sex partners would be to sanction behavior which God, through Scripture, has revealed to be sinful.”
The Presbyterian Review reported that “it is likely that the presbytery’s action will be challenged as being irregular in the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast. The Review also published on its web site a copy of the approved motion: “Presbytery affirms the freedom of any session to allow its ministers to perform ceremonies of holy union [within or outside the confines of the church’s sanctuary] between persons of the same gender, reflecting our understanding at this time that these ceremonies do not constitute marriage as defined in the Book of Order.”
In commenting on the Hudson River’s action, The Review said Hudson River “becomes the first presbytery to officially endorse the repeatedly rejected ‘local option’ idea. It leaves the decision up to each individual session and clergy as to whether these kinds of ceremonies are appropriate. ‘Local option’ has been rejected as a solution to the issue of the participation of self-avowed practicing homosexual persons in the leadership of the church because it runs contrary to the “connectional” nature of the denomination. By agreeing to uphold and support the Constitution, individual congregations yield the right to do anything they want and abide by the consensus of the entire church.”