Sample Speeches (for the presbytery consideration of Amendment O) By Jim Tony Palos Park, Illinois November 2000 No one, least of all I, will know what each presbytery needs to hear from those who believe Amendment O should pass. Therefore, please receive these seed thoughts as just that. Obviously the whole book of preparation materials is designed to make possible your own thought and speech development. Read these in the confidence that you can do better. And you certainly will. Need for Amendment O Last May 22, 2000, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GA PJC) for the first time in the history of our denomination decided that there is a “permissible same-sex ceremony.” I say the first time, because just weeks earlier the Advisory Committee on the Constitution had written: “The intent of the church, demonstrated in amendments, judicial decisions, and assembly authoritative interpretations is to prohibit any ceremony that blesses or appears to give legitimacy between same-sex couples insofar as the pastor or the session believe that the blessing is directly related to their relationship as a couple.” [Emphasis added] The GA PJC’s finding that “permissible same-sex ceremonies” were in accord with our standards came as news to the Advisory Committee on the Constitution – just as it does to the rest of the PCUSA. In proposing Amendment O the General Assembly itself found that the only warrant for a God-blessed relationship is to be found either “within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness.” Indeed, the longstanding policy of our denomination in sexual matters declares forthrightly that same-sex relationships do not accord with Biblical or constitutional standards. Thus, our policy expresses the historic Christian understanding that homosexual behavior is sinful. To bless what we understand to be a relationship within which sinful behavior is to take place is to make nonsense out of the very notion of Biblical or constitutional standards at all. On the other hand to bless a “union” ceremony which explicitly excludes the possibility of any sexual activity between non-married persons does not seem to be the issue which presents itself at this time. Amendment O is not a new understanding. It is in fact completely in accord with our historic standards. I am asking that you approve it, not to create some new standard, but to make explicit what is already implicit in our standards. To do so is the respond to the GA PJC’s claim that “none of the provisions of the Directory of Worship … prohibit the conduct of same-sex ceremonies.” You may wish that this were not necessary, but that GA PJC ruling that some same-sex blessing ceremonies are permissible stands unless this amendment is approved. Please vote to approve Amendment O. Situation without Amendment O Please approve Amendment O because without it our denomination will remain in a muddle. What happens if Amendment O is not approved? Constitutionally, the authoritative interpretation of the most recent GA PJC ruling in Benton et al. v Presbytery of Hudson River remains in force. That ruling asserts for the first time that some same-sex union blessings are permissible and others are not. Conflict in this sensitive area is bound to be created by the decision itself. Which blessings are permissible and which are not? Some guidance is given by the decision. For instance, “there should be a liturgical distinction in services blessing a same-sex relationship … Ministers should not appropriate specific liturgical forms from services of Christian marriage … They should also instruct same-sex couples that the service … does not constitute a marriage and should not be held out as such.” So what language is permitted and what is not? Can the word covenant be used? Can there be a kiss or the exchange of rings or other meaningful symbols? What about “unity candles” or the use of acolytes? These “distinctions” are left undefined. Are we going to have to settle what is appropriate at a “permissible” same sex ceremony by court cases? Or do some expect that the burden to do so will prove so onerous that the distinctions will become meaningless? And what of the value, then, of any decision by the GA PJC? The very fabric of our unity would collapse without some willing submission to the authority of our constitution. Further questions arise out of the need asserted that same-sex couples be instructed that such a service does not constitute a marriage and should not be held out as such. Does that declaration belong in the blessing service itself? What does a union mean when it is dissociated from the language of the confessions and our liturgy that refer to marriage as the union blessed by God? But this is only the beginning of difficulties with trying to live under the situation without Amendment O. I do not think either pro-homosexual activists or confessional traditionalists would find the situation desirable. For the decision of the GA PJC goes on to state that a same-sex ceremony “should not be construed as an endorsement of homosexual conjugal practice proscribed by the General Assembly.” Are these ceremonies intended to bless purely non-sexual relationships? Would the ceremonies need to acknowledge the exclusion of sexual activity from the blessing? Exactly who is seeking such a ceremony which does not envision some sort of sexual consummation? In dealing with Amendment O it is imperative for us to keep in mind the situation that its rejection would leave the church in. Because that situation would be one of confusion and conflict, I urge you to support Amendment O. Marriage as the union God establishes [The following takes the marriage service from the 1993 Book of Common Worship and emphasizes the Statement on the Gift of Marriage in certain ways.] We gather in the presence of God To give thanks for the gift of marriage, To witness the joining together of N and N, To surround them with our prayers, And to ask God’s blessing upon them, So that they may be strengthened for their life together And nurtured in their love for God. God created us male and female [and not some other way] And gave us marriage – and not some other covenant So that husband and wife may help and comfort each other, Living faithfully together in plenty and in want, In joy and in sorrow, In sickness and in health, Throughout all their days. God gave us marriage – and not any other relationship For the full expression of the love between a man and a woman – the genders were God’s idea. In marriage a woman and a man belong to each other, And with affection and tenderness Freely give themselves to each other. God gave us marriage – the service emphasizes the divine origin of marriage between a man and woman For the well-being of human society. So our confessions have uniformly taught. Marriage and not some other union are for the welfare of human society. For the ordering of family life And for the birth and nurture of children. Scripture is not silent about God’s intention. Unions consummated other than as God’s Word allows are not blessed by him. God gave us marriage [again] as a holy mystery In which a man and a woman are joined together, And become one, Just as Christ is one with the Church. Marriage is seen as more than a human relationship, but in very significant ways as analogous to God and to the union of Christ and the Church. To change the ones being joined would be to wreck the very core theology of marriage. We rejoice that marriage is given by God, Blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ, And sustained by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, let marriage be held in honor by all. As we come to decide whether to approve Amendment O, I believe we have the opportunity to demonstrate the honor for the marriage relationship that is truly due to it. Amendment O will demonstrate our support for marriage as the relationship God blesses and not some other lesser copy. For the Church of Jesus Christ to attempt to put his blessing on some other type of relationship it would need to demonstrate that Jesus himself put his stamp of approval on some other type of union, that he abrogated the covenant of creation. I can find no counterpart of marriage and so I ask that you join with me to let marriage continue to be held in honor by all as we together vote to approve Amendment O.

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