Overture calls for ban on same-sex union
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, December 22, 1999
An overture from the Presbytery of Tampa Bay has set off a race between the 2000 General Assembly and the highest court in the Presbyterian Church (USA) to weigh in on the issue of whether Presbyterian ministers may conduct ceremonies of “holy union” between same-sex couples.
The Presbytery of Tampa Bay voted 82-73 on Dec. 8 to call for a change to three sections of the Book of Order so that ministers of the Word and Sacrament would be forbidden by the constitution from conducting or blessing same-sex unions. The overture will be considered by the 2000 General Assembly after it convenes on June 24, 2000 in Long Beach, Calif.
The General Asssembly’s Permanent Judicial Commission is expected to meet sometime in the spring of 2000 – no date has been set – to hear an appeal of a decision rendered by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast.
Ruling by synod court
The synod court ruled that the Hudson River Presbytery did not violate the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) when it authorized sessions to permit their ministers to conduct same-sex unions and to use church property for the ceremonies.
In its decision, the synod court said same-sex ceremonies did not violate the constitution because they were not the same as marriages. The constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, not between two men or two women.
But the Tampa Bay overture said such distinctions are possible only because key sections of the Book of Order are vague. The overture calls for amendments to:
G-6.0106 (adding, “Officers shall not bless or endorse any behavior in others that is prohibited by this constitution”);
G-11.0403 (adding, “The ministry shall not authorize, conduct or participate in worship services or other ceremonies designed to unite, in a covenantal relationship approximating marriage, members of the same sex”);
G-8:.0300 (adding, “Property of a particular church of the PCUSA shall not be used for purposes which bless or sanction as acceptable any behavior that is prohibited by this Constitution, including ceremonies that seek to bless same-sex unions.”)
Services ’emulate marriages’
The Tampa Bay overture says that “many same-sex unions have been performed by ministers and endorsed by sessions on technical and legalistic grounds that such unions are not precisely ‘the same as’ a marriage ceremony.” But, the overture added, the same-sex unions “are designed and constructed to emulate marriage ceremonies, and are often construed by participants, worshipers and guests alike to be ‘weddings.'”
In the synod case, Julius B. Poppinga, the attorney for the complainants, said the appeal to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly cites six of the seven grounds for appeal recognized by church rules.
Those grounds include the refusal by the synod court to require Susan DeGeorge and Joseph Gilmore, the co-pastors of South Church in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., to testify during the trial, which was held in Newark in November.
Three times during the trial and twice in pre-trial filings, Poppinga asked the commission to issue citations requiring their testimony. All five requests were denied.
Pastors conducted services
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 synod court said the holy union services were not marriages, but there was no description of the services during the trial and Poppinga said the court reached its conclusion without adequate information.
All of the original complainants – seven ministers and eight congregations in region – joined in the appeal.
The synod court’s decision “tries to split hairs,” Poppinga said. “While finding that same-sex marriages and [same-sex] weddings are not authorized, it nevertheless ruled that church services solemnizing same sex ‘holy unions’ are OK, even in the face of evidence that one of the ministers who performed such ceremonies admitted he could not tell the difference.”
‘More judicial approach’
Poppinga expressed confidence that the General Assembly court “will take a more judicial approach to the subject and will agree that the church and its ministers may not endorse relationships that are contrary to established church law.”
The synod court voted 7-3, and there were two dissents.
One was written by Fred Denson, moderator of the synod court. He said, “The official position of the denomination is that homosexual orientation is not sin and that homosexual practice is sin. (Report of Assembly Committee on Ordination and Human Sexuality as adopted by the 208th General Assembly, Minutes, 1996, page 79) Same gender holy unions are a manifestation of homosexual practice. Because presbytery’s action sanctions this sinful activity, it is erroneous.
“Complainants have met their burden of proof by showing that the Presbytery approved the contested union and by presenting unrebutted evidence that homosexual practice is sin. Therefore, the irregularity specified in the complaint should be sustained. My conclusion is independent of the issue of whether a holy union is the same as a marriage.”
The other dissent 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.” They also said the complaint should have been sustained.