Synod PJC upholds Spahr’s censure for performing same-sex weddings
The Layman, March 30, 2011
The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Pacific has upheld a lower court censure of the Rev. Jane Spahr, who performed multiple same-sex weddings after the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) explicitly ordered her not to do so.
The synod PJC’s ruling upheld the judgment of the Presbytery of the Redwoods PJC on all 13 specifications of error alleged in the appeal.
Undisputed facts
The fact that Spahr officiated at ceremonies that she called “marriages” was not in dispute. According to the synod PJC’s trial transcript, she said “”[T]his is what I say at the end, I say this to everyone, ‘Whom God has joined together, let nobody ever mess with,’ that’s what I say and that’s what I believe.” Related links
PLC quoted in LA Times article
Also not in dispute is the fact that the Book of Order, the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), defines marriage as the union of “one man and one woman” and that previous judicial rulings prohibit same-sex “marriages” in light of that definition.
In Disciplinary Case 218-12 (2008), the GAPJC stated “… officers of the PCUSA authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage. Under W-4.9001 [a section of the Book of Order that defines marriage], a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.”
State law – God’s law
Same-sex marriages were lawful in the State of California when Spahr defied Presbyterian Church law by performing at least 15 such ceremonies between June 17, 2008 and November 3, 2008. So according to the state of California, these events were marriages.
But were they marriages in the eyes of the church? Spahr argued that in her ceremonies “God” joined the same-sex partners, suggesting that her state-sanctioned marriages were also divinely-sanctioned marriages.
But were they church-sanctioned (“ecclesiastical”) ceremonies? That was the key question addressed in the synod PJC’s appellate review. Declaring that Spahr’s “marriages” were not marriages in the eyes of the church and agreeing that she should be censured for insisting that they were, the court relied heavily on a precedent setting ruling by the GAPJC in Jean K Southard v Presbytery of Boston (Southard, 2011). In that case, the GAPJC ruled that although a state may deem same-sex couplings “a marriage,” the PCUSA does not recognize them as such and does not permit its ministers who officiate at such ceremonies to call them marriages.
The synod PJC noted that in Southard, 2011, “the GAPJC for the first time, addressed ‘a marriage of two persons of the same gender when such marriages are permitted under the laws of the state in which the marriage is performed.’”
Name matters
The synod PJC quoted from Southard, 2011: “‘In light of the change in laws in some states, this Commission reiterates that officers of the PCUSA who are
“[T]his is what I say at the end, I say this to everyone, ‘Whom God has joined together, let nobody ever mess with,’ that’s what I say and that’s what I believe.”
The Rev. Jane Spahr
Quoted in the synod PJC trial transcript
authorized to perform marriages, when performing a ceremony for a same-gender couple, shall not state, imply, or represent that the same-gender ceremony is an ecclesiastical marriage ceremony as defined by PCUSA polity, whether or not the civil jurisdiction allows same-gender marriages” (emphasis added).”
During Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick’s tenure, the Office of the General Assembly, one of whose tasks is to interpret the Book of Order, maintained that nothing in the constitution prohibits Presbyterian ministers from “celebrating” same-sex unions or “blessing” them ritually, so long as they do not use the word marriage or employ liturgical forms taken from the denomination’s marriage ceremony.
A reluctant ruling
In comments that the synod PJC attached to its ruling, it suggested that it had no choice but to render its decision under the current wording of the Book of Order and judicial precedent, but that it was unhappy doing so. It called the GAPJC rulings (Spahr in 2008 and Southard in 2011) on which it based its own decision “troubling,” and suggested that the solution to the same-sex ceremony issue may be “by the usual practice of amending the Book of Order.”
“Our concern is for those PCUSA clergy who wish to officiate at a same-gender civil wedding,” said the synod PJC. “What would such a minister need to do to faithfully perform a civil wedding while conforming to PCUSA polity regarding ecclesiastical weddings?”
In a comment that may well be quoted when the 2012 General Assembly considers new legislation, the synod PJC said: “In a time when increasing numbers of states permit same-gender weddings and civil unions, it is important for the church to clarify how its clergy might pastorally participate in such secular occasions while honoring the PCUSA’s definition of Christian marriage.”
According to report in the Los Angeles Times, Spahr will appeal the court’s decision.