Language in same-sex decision does not compel compliance
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, May 26, 2000
In language that reads more like a recommendation than a requirement, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly has added an ambiguous approval to the conducting of same-sex rites by ministers in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
The decision by the denomination’s highest court includes a number of caveats, but they are mostly phrased in language that suggests, and does not compel, ministers to make clear that they are not marrying two men or two women.
For instance, the decision says:
- “… ministers and sessions should take special care to avoid any confusion of such services with services of Christian marriage.”
- “Ministers should not appropriate specific liturgical forms from services of Christian marriage or services recognizing civil marriage in the conduct of such ceremonies.”
- “They should also instruct same-sex couples that the service to be conducted does not constitute a marriage ceremony and should not be held out as such.”
None of the “shoulds” compel compliance by congregations and ministers to the court’s guidelines.
The decision does not include a single “shall” or “must” as part of its conditional framework for same-sex services.
The “should” language leaves little opportunity for remedial or disciplinary action in cases in which a minister conducts a service for two people of the same sex identical to a marriage service. In fact, the wording of the decision leaves little recourse if the minister should declare – as several in the denomination have already done – that the same-sex ceremony constituted a marriage of two homosexuals.
The decision seems to try to accomplish two conflicting goals: allowing rites for same-sex ceremonies and withholding approval of homosexual acts.
“Such a same-sex ceremony does not bless any specific act, and this Decision should not be construed as an endorsement of homosexual conjugal practice proscribed by the General Assembly,” the court said. Note again the use of the word “should.”
That part of the decision raises a question. Ministers who conduct traditional marriage services usually counsel the couple before the nuptials. Often, that counseling will focus on sex, money, personal habits and other issues that the minister believes the couple should address.
In pre-union counseling of homosexuals, will ministers ask if the couple plan to have sex? If the answer is yes, would the ministers be constrained from conducting the rites? Nothing in the decision establishes knowledge of a conjugal relationship as a prohibitive for same-sex rites. The decision quotes neither from Scripture nor the Book of Confessions. In fact, it calls for “balance” between the church’s Biblical and confessional standards and the pastoral needs in the congregation – in effect, relegating Scripture and the confessions to a status (“balance”) on par with the denomination’s primary authorities.
The decision does, however, stand on precedent: an authoritative interpretation by the 1991 General Assembly that prohibits same-sex ceremonies if they “were considered to be the equivalent of a marriage ceremony.” That interpretation does not specifically sanction same-sex ceremonies.
The final appeal is to the General Assembly. Three overtures that would make changes in the Book of Order to prohibit same-sex ceremonies are on the agenda for the 212th General Assembly, which will meet June 24-July 1 in Long Beach, Calif.
Soulforce, an ecumenical gay-rights group, has targeted the General Assembly for civil-disobedience demonstrations on Sunday during the worship service that is expected to attract thousands of Presbyterians. Organizers for the demonstrations say they will stage protests outside and inside the convention center.