Posted by DK on 4/24/2001, 3:24 pm

43% of Presbyterian Church USA votes for same sex marriage Posted by Wonderboy on 4/3/2001, 8:58 am , in reply to "Mainstream Christianity..." This apostasy has been linked to the careless handling of the scripture and can be indirectly linked to a false understanding of the nature of God as expressed in traditional trinitarian doctrine (I say this with toungue firmly placed in cheek for Steve B's benefit) Presbyterian News Service 01108 March 28, 2001 Stated clerk clarifies status of same-sex unions after defeat of Amendment O Same-sex union ceremonies must be distinct from marriage, Kirkpatrick says by Jerry L. Van Marter LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the General Assembly, has issued an "advisory opinion" explaining current Presbyterian Church (USA) policy on same-sex union ceremonies. Kirkpatrick’s March 26 statement was accompanied by an announcement that Amendment O — the so-called "same-sex union" amendment — officially has been defeated in an up-or-down vote of the denomination’s 173 presbyteries. Kirkpatrick reaffirmed church policy that, because marriage is defined by The Book of Order as between a man and a woman, ministers and sessions "may not utilize liturgies for Christian marriage or the recognition of civil marriage in ceremonies for same-sex couples." On the other hand, Kirkpatrick — citing a ruling last year by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) — said pastors and sessions may provide pastoral care to same-sex couples in the form of worship services that "celebrate a loving, caring and committed relationship," but "must advise such couples that such a service does not constitute a marriage and may not be held out as such." It was the PJC’s ruling that prompted the submission of Amendment O to last year’s General Assembly, which narrowly approved it and sent it to the presbyteries for ratification or rejection. The amendment would have added a section W-4.9007 to the Directory for Worship in The Book of Order, stating: "Scripture and our Confessions teach that God’s intention for all people is to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness. Church property shall not be used for, and church officers shall not take part in conducting, any ceremony or event that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes the blessing of God upon any relationship that is inconsistent with God’s intention as expressed in the preceding sentence." As of March 28, the unofficial tally on Amendment O was 71 presbyteries in favor and 95 opposed. Eighty-seven votes for or against were needed to decide the matter. The full text of Kirkpatrick’s statement: The Office of the General Assembly has now received official notice of votes in the negative on Proposed Amendment O from eighty-eight presbyteries, a majority of the presbyteries of the Church. Therefore, it does not appear the proposed language will become part of the Directory for Worship (G-18.0301e). Given all the discussion around the issues since the 212th General Assembly (2000), it seems an appropriate time for the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly to offer an advisory opinion through this Polity Reflection about the constitutional status of ceremonies blessing relationships of persons of the same gender. The first thing which must be said is that the definition of Christian Marriage in W-4.9001 remains as the first word about committed relationships. It would not have been changed if Amendment O had been adopted, nor is it changed by the defeat of the proposed language. It may be helpful to quote W-4.9001 here: "Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith." There are other provisions in the Directory for Worship which clearly indicate that the marriage liturgy is designed for a celebration of a new reality as the woman and the man are joined in marriage. The church also is concerned about those for whom marriage is not an appropriate expression of their Christian discipleship. G-4.0403 affirms the commitment of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to the rich diversity within its membership and the participation in the life and ministry of the church of members of different marital conditions among other aspects of diversity (G-4.0403). So for those for whom singleness is a matter of personal commitment or a reality to be accepted, the church is committed to their pastoral care and to guidance in their discipleship. As the questions raised over the years, such as the questions addressed by the General Assembly in 1991 (Minutes, 1991, p. 395), or those addressed by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission in 2000 in the Hudson River Presbytery case (Minutes, 2000, p. 586)*, have made clear, there are other members of the church who believe that they are called to live out their Christian discipleship in committed relationships in which the other person is of the same gender. With the interpretation adopted in 1991, the General Assembly declared that it would not be proper for a minister to perform a same-sex union ceremony that the ministers determines to be the same as a marriage ceremony. Similarly, a session should not allow the use of church facilities for such a ceremony. (cf. footnote below) In a remedial case concerning same-sex union ceremonies (Benton, et al. v. Presbytery of Hudson River, Minutes, 2000, p. 586), the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission found that both the complainants and the presbytery had applied the authoritative interpretation of 1991 categorically and without distinctions. The General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission went on to apply the authoritative interpretation with distinctions and reversed the decision of the synod Permanent Judicial Commission to the extent that the presbytery failed to make the necessary distinction between same-sex ceremonies that would be inappropriate because they might be confused with ceremonies of Christian marriage and those that might be appropriate in the practice of pastoral care of members (ceremonies in the form and spirit of W-6.3010 and W-6.3011). After the Hudson River case, ministers and sessions have the following guidance: They may not utilize liturgies for Christian marriage or the recognition of civil marriage in ceremonies for same-sex couples. They may not perform a ceremony that they consider to be the same as a marriage ceremony nor may they permit their facilities to be utilized for any such ceremony. That was the rule before the Hudson River case and before Amendment "O" was proposed. It is still the rule in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) They may provide pastoral care in the form of worship services that "celebrate a loving, caring, and committed relationship" for same-sex couples (Hudson River), but must also advise such couples that such a service does not constitute a marriage and may not be held out as such. This means that ministers and sessions continue to be responsible to make appropriate decisions concerning pastoral care for members, all the members of the church.