Jane Spahr

• Violated the GAPJC’s 2008 ruling on Spahr v. PCUSA through the Presbytery of Redwoods, which said that PCUSA ministers cannot call a same-sex ceremony a “marriage,” based on the Book of Order’s definition;
• Persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience;
• Failed to be governed by the PCUSA’s policy regarding her ordination vows by violating the 2008 GAPJC ruling on same-sex marriages; and
• Failed to uphold the peace, unity and purity of the church.
   

The 2008 Spahr case before the GAPJC, which the new charges are based upon, focused on section W.9000 in the Book of Order. It defines Christian marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman that’s a covenant before God.
 
At a pretrial hearing March 3, Spahr pleaded not guilty to the charge, which was filed by a member of a church in the presbytery. The Presbytery of Redwoods did not respond to requests for information about the case.
 
Spahr’s legal team will base its defense on a big difference between this case and previous challenges to same-sex marriages in the PCUSA. The Taylor-Holmes ceremony, along with about a dozen others Spahr performed in 2008, were sanctioned by the state of California.
 
“It makes a huge difference that these marriages were legally sanctioned,” Taylor said. “The church has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the state in agreeing to perform these marriages since the time of (John) Calvin. … The difference in this particular case is that in prior times, what the church has said is the Rev. Spahr, by authority vested in her by the church, cannot call these people married. … And what the church has not dealt with, there has never been any case that has looked at her authority that is granted her by the state and the authority that is granted her by the constitution to perform those civil marriages. … It’s wholly different than anything that has happened before.”  
 
The two main arguments by the defense will be that Spahr was merely performing her pastoral role by performing a marriage and the PCUSA has no “constitutional prohibition” against her action in this fashion, Taylor said.
 
Because in 2009 several more states – Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Washington D.C. and Connecticut – joined Massachusetts in making same-sex unions legal, Taylor anticipates more cases like this one.
 
“I think this is a key question the church must face,” Taylor said of pastors in the states where same-sex unions now are legal. “Are we going to say to those pastors ‘you cannot marry people in your congregation’? That’s a pretty heavy burden to put on pastors.”
 
The defense is not suggesting that the PCUSA require its ministers to perform same-sex unions, Taylor said. Rather, the goal is to make sure the church doesn’t discipline a minister for doing something that isn’t constitutionally prohibited in the Book of Order and is endorsed by the state, she said.
 
“It’s akin to saying if a heterosexual couple came to a pastor and asked to marry them without a license and she married them, that marriage would not meet the definition of marriage according to the church, because they didn’t have a civil contract,” Taylor said. “Would you discipline a minister for that?”
 
According to a news release, which lists Spahr’s name at the top and a media contact from GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), if she’s found guilty this would be the first time the PCUSA disciplined a minister for performing a marriage sanctioned by the state.