Church court says ‘same-sex’ rites do not violate constitution
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, November 22, 1999
NEWARK – The sessions of Presbyterian congregations may authorize their ministers to conduct so-called “holy unions” of same-sex couples and to use church property for the ceremonies as long as they are not the same as marriages, according to a ruling by a synod court.
The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast said in its decision that the same-sex unions did not constitute “marriage” and therefore were not specifically forbidden by the Book of Order. The proper way to forbid the services, the commission said, would be through legislation, not through constitutional interpretation.
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 the same-sex unions were the equivalent of marriage, which Presbyterian law defines only as a union of man and woman, not between two men or two women.
During the 10-hour trial in Newark on Nov. 5, Julius Poppinga, counsel for the complainants, all but assured the commission’s moderator, Fred L. Denson, that he would appeal the case if the verdict went against the complainants.
Appeal is planned
In his response to the decision that he received by mail Nov. 22, Poppinga said, “Will we appeal? Certainly. Even though the decision does not go to the merits, some will try to hide behind it to continue to hold same-sex weddings.”
Poppinga issued a statement in which he said the majority of the synod court “failed to act like a court … Complainants presented 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.”
The commission was divided 8-2. The majority concluded that “we do not find persuasive the … claims … that services which sessions might authorize … impermissibly simulate Christian marriage.”
Dissenting opinion
The dissenting opinion was written by Dr. D. Dean Weaver and the Rev. Craig C. Kerewich. They said that although the Book of Order lacks specific reference to same-sex unions, that “should not be interpreted as an endorsement of these ceremonies.”
Weaver and Kerewich said the complaint against the Hudson River Presbytery, which voted 105 to 35 on June 10, 1999, to authorize sessions to allow their ministers to conduct same-sex unions, should have been sustained.
Three times during the trial and twice in pre-trial filings, Poppinga asked the commission to issue citations that would have required Susan DeGeorge and Joseph Gilmore, the co-pastors of South Presbyterian Church at Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., to testify.
DeGeorge and Gilmore had told reporters for The Journal News of Westchester County, N.Y., and The New York Times, that they had conducted about 15 “holy unions” for same-sex couples at South Church.
The news accounts quoted DeGeorge and Gilmore as using the words “holy union” and marriage interchangeably. Furthermore, testimony in the trial quoted Gilmore as telling the Hudson River Presbytery that a same-sex union was the same as marriage.
The news accounts brought the issue to the attention of the presbytery, which, after a review by a special administrative committee, authorized sessions to permit their pastors to conduct the “holy unions.”
Co-pastors not target of complaint
The complaint was filed against the presbytery and not the co-pastors of South Church. But Poppinga said the testimony of DeGeorge and Gilmore was germane because the trial provided no evidence of exactly what occurred at a “holy union.”
DeGeorge is a member of the synod’s permanent judicial commission, but she recused herself from hearing the Hudson River case. Nonetheless, Poppinga argued in pre-trial submissions, her membership on the commission strained its impartiality. He had also asked, unsuccessfully, that the synod commission waive its right to hear the case and pass the case along to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly, the highest court in the PCUSA.
“The court refused to allow the complainants to call her and her co-pastor as witnesses and it deprived the complainants of equal access to her church’s records,” Poppinga said in his Nov. 22 statement. “She did not sit on the case, but the appearance of an internally conflicted court, unable objectively to hear and weigh the evidence, hangs over this decision like a dark cloud.”
Focus of arguments
Arguments in the case focused on two issues: what constitutes marriage and how does the “fidelity/chastity” clause in the Presbyterian Church (USA) apply to same-sex unions.
Sharon Davison, the counsel for the Hudson River Presbytery, argued that “holy unions” were not marriage and that the “fidelity/chastity” clause applied only to ordination, not a rite of union between two people of the same sex. She repeatedly said that the PCUSA’s ordination standard did not apply to homosexual members unless they became candidates for office, and that holy unions were not the same as marriage.
Poppinga, with the help of two witnesses who carefully reviewed the Biblical and constitutional definitions of marriage, built a case that demonstrated that the terminology “holy union” was used as a synonym for marriage.
The “fidelity/chastity” clause in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is a moral standard for members just as it is an ordination requirement for officers, said Dr. John Burgess, a member of the faculty of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and a former staff theologian.
Unions ‘violate constitution’
For that and other reasons, Burgess said, “holy unions” of same-gender couples violate the constitution and should not be permitted.
Considered together, the testimony of Burgess and Episcopal scholar Stephen Noll, author of Two Sexes, One Flesh: Why the Church Cannot Bless Same-Sex Marriages, was that “holy unions” are a theological aberration with no justification in Scripture, the Book of Order or the 11 confessions of the PCUSA.
“It’s theologically impossible for same-sex unions to be holy or receive the blessing of the Church,” said Noll, a theology professor at the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. He will soon become president of an Episcopal seminary in Uganda.
“To use ‘union’ for a same-sex relationship is to obscure and confuse our definition of marriage,” Burgess said. He quoted citations from the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions, including a sentence from the Confession of 1967: “Anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of man’s alienation from God.”
The testimony included a minister’s verbatim notes of comments by Gilmore, who officiated at several same-sex unions at South Presbyterian Church at Dobbs Ferry. The Rev. Thomas Unkenholz produced a day scheduler with notes about the June 30, 1999 Hudson River Presbytery meeting, during which Gilmore said, “It’s just semantics; it’s a wedding.”
Through the testimony of Unkenholz and John Paul Scavarda, Poppinga sought to demonstrate that whatever language was used, the common perception of holy unions is that they were marriages and that they violated Biblical and constitutional definitions of marriage.
Gays: ‘Unions’ are marriages
Scarvada, a member of Pleasantville Presbyterian Church in the Hudson River Presbytery, said the belief that the events were marriages was being expressed on independent Presbyterian web sites operated by More Light Churches and Hesed. Both groups, along with Covenant Network of Presbyterians, Voices of Sophia and the Witherspoon Society, have been in the forefront of efforts to overturn the denomination’s ban against ordaining practicing homosexuals and to allow same-sex ceremonies.
Scarvada quoted from articles published on the two web sites in which the services conducted by DeGeorge, Gilmore and other Presbyterian ministers were termed “marriages.” One article on a More Light Churches page was headlined “Presbyterian lesbian and gay marriages,” Scarvada said. Another article, referring to a service held at Clayton Valley Presbyterian Church, was titled “Getting married: Two cowboys get hitched.”
He said another page on the More Light web site included an article stating that the gay-lesbian community considered the same-sex unions “to have the same spiritual sense as marriage.” He referred to a comment on the Hesed web site which called for a revised definition of marriage so that same-sex unions “can be called by their right name.”