Response to General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission Decision November 2000 In the Hudson River same-sex union case the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission tried to preserve the Christian understanding of marriage (W-4.9001 and W-4.9004) by what it said, but seriously impaired that understanding by what it did. In its decision, the Commission said: The public declaration (W-4.9004) that a woman and a man are joined in marriage and similar pronouncements declaring a new status are reserved for services of marriage. Ministers and sessions ... should take special care to avoid any confusion of [same-sex] 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 [same-sex] ceremonies. Ministers 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. ... a same-sex ceremony does not bless any specific act. ... this decision should not be construed as an endorsement of homosexual conjugal practice proscribed by the General Assembly. These statements echo the minimum concerns that the vast majority of Presbyterians share, but by opening the door to church-sponsored same-sex unions the decision fails to satisfy even those concerns. (Nor will advocates of gay/lesbian marriage be satisfied with a ceremony that denies a change in status and that withholds approval of sexual intimacy.) Even if all the participants in same-sex union ceremonies diligently adhere to the PJC’s admonitions, such ceremonies in a worship setting conducted by Presbyterian ministers in Presbyterian churches nevertheless are – to use the PJC’s own words – services blessing a same-sex relationship between same-sex couples. This inescapably sends a message of endorsement of a same-sex relationship having a sexual dimension and finding expression in intimate sexual practices. It is too late to try to separate the PCUSA’s approval of such ceremonies from that message. Why is that so? Because the ceremonies are already referred to as effecting a union – a term confessionally linked to the marital state. The PJC itself repeatedly uses the term relationship and speaks of same-sex couples. The participants, the organized promoters within the Presbyterian gay/lesbian ranks and the general public including the secular media, are more direct – they call what takes place marriage. All of these terms are sexually freighted. It is simply unreal to assume that same-sex unions of same-sex couples do not, as a norm, signal sexual intimacy. To make that assumption is just as unreal as to suppose that abstention from sexual intimacy is the norm in heterosexual marriage. Let us accept as sincere the PJC’s plea that its decision not be taken to be an endorsement of homosexual behavior or as permitting the blessing of specific conduct. But let us also be realistic – what the decision permits is an endorsement and it does permit churches to bless behavior that the denomination’s confessions call sin. To give the disclaimers in the decision the effect that the PJC presumably intended – and that the PCUSA expects – is now left in the hands of the General Assembly. The best way to do that is to pass Amendment O adding W-4.9007 to our Book of Order.

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links