Church court to review same-sex ‘holy unions’
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, October 29, 1999
NEWARK – A long-running debate over whether Presbyterian ministers should be allowed to conduct “holy union” ceremonies for same-sex couples will be reviewed by a church court on Nov. 4 in Newark.
The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast will consider a complaint against the Hudson River Presbytery which voted 105-35 in January 1999 to affirm “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.”
The presbytery’s resolution also said the ceremonies “do not constitute marriage as defined in the Book of Order.”
Two cases on the agenda
The Hudson River case is one of two on the agenda for the synod commission. The other is a complaint against the West Jersey Presbytery which has accepted as a candidate for ordination a seminarian who told the presbytery that it was his intention to pursue homosexual relationships that included sexual activity. G-6.0106b of the Book of Order requires ministers to confine their sexual activity to marriage.
The synod commission will review the West Jersey case on Nov. 5.
The Hudson River case is one of the most widely publicized cases involving same-gender relations in the United States.
The New York Times, following up on a story in a local newspaper, published a long article about Joseph H. Gilmore and Susan G. DeGeorge, co-pastors of Southburg Presbyterian Church in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. They had conducted numerous holy unions at Southburg.
Congregation a ‘More Light Church’
Southburg Presbyterian is a 200-member congregation that calls itself a “More Light Church” and defines that as meaning “that gay men and lesbians are welcome to the worship, the work, and the leadership of this congregation.”
After the local and Times stories about Gilmore and DeGeorge and the “holy unions,” the issue came to floor of the Hudson River Presbytery, which approved the activity. In a formal dissent, a minority of the commissioners expressed their “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.”
Three General Assemblies have previously considered amendments to the Book of Order that would specifically prohibit ministers from participating in same-sex unions. Only one of those recommendations went to the presbyteries. In 1994, presbyteries voted against prohibiting ministers from participating in same-sex unions.
Part of the disagreement over the ceremonies is semantics. The language of the Hudson River Presbytery’s resolution carefully stated that the ceremonies do not constitute “marriage.” Therefore, pastors favoring the unions say they participating in rites that do not challenge the denomination’s definition of marriage and therefore are not out of bounds. And, they contend, there is nothing specific in church law that would ban them from conducting “union” rites for homosexuals.
Busy month for synod commission
The November cases will complete a busy month for the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast. In October, the commission heard two cases that challenged G-60106.b, the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard, and ruled in favor of the Constitution in both cases.
In one case, the commission voted 8-3 to require a session to re-examine an elder who had stated publicly that he was homosexual and living in a committed relationship with another gay but was “chaste in God’s eyes.” The commission said the session did not question the elder sufficiently and that the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Southern New England erred in approving the session’s action without a more specific interrogation.
In another case, the commission voted 11-0 in finding that the Presbytery of Northern New England erred when it permitted Christ Church of Burlington, Vt., to make a formal dissent from G-0106.b. Presbytery officials say they will decide on Dec. 4 whether to appeal the ruling. In the meantime, they have authorized an appeal contingent on the outcome of the Dec. 4 meeting.