Same-sex rites termed euphemism for marriage
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, May 22, 2000
BALTIMORE – With their lead counsel, attorney Julius “Jay” Poppinga, sidelined because of medical problems that began just hours before the hearing, members of a committee of counsel attacked same-sex “holy unions” as violations of the church law and euphemism for marriage.
On the other hand, advocates of the same-sex unions declared same-sex unions could not be the same as marriages – neither in the eyes of the church nor in the eyes of most states.
The two sides presented their arguments on May 19 before the 16-member Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the highest court in the denomination. The case was on appeal from the Synod of the Northeast, which had ruled that the Hudson River Presbytery did not err when it said local church sessions could authorize their ministers to conduct same-sex unions in church buildings.
Euphemistic language attacked
Gordon Fish, a research scientist and an elder at Grace Presbyterian Church in Montclair, N.J., took the lead for the complainants’ committee on counsel in the absence of Poppinga, a noted appellate lawyer and an authority on the Book of Order. Poppinga wrote the brief that Fish presented.
Fish told the court that the complainants had respect for a couple who said they were “married” during a same-sex union conducted by the Rev. Joseph Gilmore at South Presbyterian Church in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., for Gilmore himself, for The Rockford Journal and for The New York Times – because all used the clear, unambiguous language of marriage.
But, he said, by contrast “church officials have hidden behind semantics … The Hudson River Presbytery did just that… the Synod PJC did just that … Semantic hair-splitting is a sham. It does not well serve the church. It does not serve our Lord.”
The case against the Hudson River Presbytery arose after The Rockford Journal and The New York Times published stories about Gilmore conducting services at South Church. He was quoted as saying that the services were marriages. And later, according to trial testimony, Gilmore said at a presbytery meeting that whatever anyone called the services was simply a matter of semantics.
Violation of standards
The idea that a minister could “unite” and bless two men or two women violates Scripture, the confessions and the Book of Order, Fish said. It also violates the sacred institution of marriage, which serves as a metaphor to describe the relationship between God and Israel and to describe Jesus, the “bridegroom” of the Church in the New Testament, Fish said.
Quoting from the Book of Order, Fish said the “Christian understanding of marriage is not to be diminished.”
But Sharon Davison, an attorney in New York City and a Presbyterian elder at Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church, said the presbytery’s sanctioning of same-sex unions was not the equivalent of sanctioning same-sex unions. The presbytery “does not permit same-sex marriages nor did it violate the Book of Order.”
She said there was no explicit mention of same-sex unions in the Book of Order and if they were considered marriages they would not be sanctioned.
Legislative process urged
Instead of church court action to declare same-sex unions unlawful, she said, the proper course is to seek change through the Presbyterian process – via overture. She noted that three overtures opposing same-sex unions will be on the docket of the 2000 General Assembly, when it meets in Long Beach, Calif., June 24-July 1.
“We are urging the legislative process,” she said. “It is right to work for a change, but it must be done with the proper process.”
Griffith countered that while same-sex unions are not explicitly forbidden in the Book of Order or the Book of Confessions, “there is not a scintilla of support in either document … There is one standard for all persons: fidelity in holy wedlock and chastity in singleness.”
Davison contended that same-sex unions were similar to other nontraditional “blessing” services that are not specifically forbidden, such as the blessing of elderly opposite-sex couples who live together in a nonsexual relationship to care for each other and to provide companionship. Some choose that lifestyle because marriage would reduce their Social Security income, Davison said.
What happens at rites?
Christopher Yim, a minister member of the Permanent Judicial Commission, asked Griffith and Davison if they knew what transpired at a same-sex union.
“I’m clueless,” said Davison, who suggested it was a ceremony for commitment in friendship and companionship, which “has its theological understanding going all the way back to Calvin.”
Griffith also said he was unfamiliar with what happened at same-sex ceremonies. He said that during the trial before the synod court the complainants had sought to have the court compel Gilmore to describe the services but the court refused.
(William Wersenbach, a Presbyterian minister and a member of the Committee of Counsel for the Hudson River Presbytery, did tell the General Assembly court about his participation in same-sex unions.)