GAPJC: No disciplinary action against PCUSA
female pastor that married another woman
By Paula R. Kincaid, The Layman, November 1, 2012
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – According to the Rev. Mary Holder Naegeli, pastor and moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition, the bottom line of the latest General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) decision related to marriage: “It is okay for a Presbyterian Church (USA) teaching elder to marry someone of the same sex, just so long as the PCUSA had nothing to do with the ceremony itself.”
In Presbyterian Church (USA) through the Presbytery of Newark v. Reverend Laurie McNeill, the GAPJC ruled that “The facts of this case do not support disciplinary action under these provisions of the Book of Order.”
On Oct. 17, 2009, while she was pastor of a church in Newark Presbytery, McNeill married her same-gender partner at Christ Church Cathedral in Harwich Port, Mass., where by civil law it was legal for two women to be married.
However, at that time, the PCUSA’s constitution did not allow for non-celibate homosexuals to be ordained leaders in the church. And even to this date, the PCUSA constitution expressly and exclusively defines marriage as being a covenant between one man and one woman.
McNeil’s nuptials were publicly announced at the Nov. 14, 2009 presbytery meeting. After complaints were made, Newark Presbytery appointed an investigating committee on Feb. 5, 2010 which in turn filed two charges against McNeill:
1. “You, Laurie McNeill, on or about Oct. 17, 2009, did commit the offense of participating in a same-sex ceremony, in which two women, namely yourself and Lisa Lynn Gollihue, were married under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in violation of W-4.9001 of the Book of Order, and thereafter representing to your then congregation and others that such ceremony was a ‘marriage’ all in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
- “You, Laurie McNeill, during the period beginning at least as early as Oct. 17, 2009 and continuing until the date hereof, did commit the offense of being involved in a relationship described as a ‘happy marriage’ with Lisa Lynn Gollihue, a person of the same sex as yourself, in violation of G-6.0106(b) of the Book of Order, in failing to live a life either in fidelity in marriage between a man and a women [sic] or chastity in singleness, all in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).”
Both the presbytery and synod PJC’s found McNeill “not guilty” of the two charges and the case was appealed to the GAPJC and heard on Oct. 26 in Louisville.
Tortuous place
“This case illustrates the tortuous place in which the PCUSA finds itself on the matter of same-gender marriage,” wrote the GAPJC in its decision.
Speaking of previous cases that the commission had heard concerning pastors who had officiated at same-gender ceremonies, the GAPJC said that those “rulings state that unions between same-gender couples, whether legally recognized or not, cannot be declared to be marriages under the current interpretation of W-4.9001.”
The GAPJC stated that since the ceremony did not occur in a PCUSA church, nor was it conducted under the auspices of the PCUSA, the Directory for Worship that “… sets standards and presents norms for the conduct of worship in the life of congregations and governing bodies of the Presbyterian Church (USA)” does not apply.
“The Constitution is silent regarding the marriage of an officer of the PCUSA in civil marriage ceremonies,” the decision read. “Further, Scripture and confessions were not argued as part of the trial record and, therefore, could not be considered on appeal.”
The decision went on to read that though McNeill “did describe herself as married, she made it clear that the PCUSA did not recognize her marriage,” and a PCUSA minister did not conduct the ceremony.
“The record does not reflect that the PPJC’s Decision was ‘plainly wrong or manifestly unjust’ … in determining that the evidence did not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that McNeill committed an offense,” the decision read.
The GAPJC decision said that “In light of the number of cases coming before this Commission and the convoluted grounds upon which cases are brought and decided, it would be beneficial for the church to provide a definitive position regarding participation of officers in same-gender ceremonies whether civil or religious.”
The GAPJC did make clear that “Nothing in this decision modifies standards and norms of the church’s understanding of marriage.”
The decision included three concurring opinions and one dissent by Flor Velez-Diaz and Robin Roberts.
The dissent asked the question “How can any officer of the church, or any member for that matter, separate his or her life as being within the church in part, and outside the church in part, or as was argued in this case, single in the eyes of the church and married in the eyes of the state?”