 Commissioners spurn marriage amendment By John H. Adams The Layman Online Sunday, June 23, 2002
Not necessarily, says the 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), which voted Friday against a statement about marriage that is essentially the same as what Presbyterians say in their Book of Order. The issue before the General Assembly was whether to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, a clear, bipartisan statement that upholds the traditional concept of marriage. "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," the proposed amendment says. "Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor federal or state law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." The Presbyterian constitution, like the amendment, clearly says that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly -- the highest court in the denomination -- upheld that position in a controversial ruling on same-sex unions. While the ruling said sessions could authorize their ministers to "bless" same-gender couples, it emphatically stated that such ceremonies could not constitute or resemble marriages. The Rev. William Teng of the National Capital Presbytery assured commissioners that the Federal Marriage Amendment was not the product of right-wing extremists. And Alex Metherell of the Presbytery of Los Ranchos cited a recent survey of the American public by Fox News, in which 76 percent of the respondents affirmed the traditional understanding of marriage. "I find it difficult to believe that the commissioners in this room are less holy than most of America," he said. But other views prevailed. Lucille Harris, a theological student advisory delegate who attends Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va., said the rationale behind the Federal Marriage Amendment would exclude benefits for other monogamous relationships. And Joe Sayre, a youth advisory delegate from the Presbytery of Sante Fe, said he could not support the federal amendment because "I do not favor amending the Constitution of the United States." He added, "I fully support marriage between gays and common-law marriages." The Rev. William Anderson of the Presbytery of Central Florida said the Federal Marriage Amendment was not about the "prohibition of same-sex partnerships; rather, it is about the preservation of marriage. No way does this amendment attempt to deny civil rights." Gradye Parsons, acting at the time for Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, was asked whether the language of the federal amendment was inconsistent with the language about marriage in the Book of Order. Parsons responded briefly that the Book of Order says marriage is between one man and one woman. The commissioners voted 272-224 not to endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment. |
||
Respond to this article |
||
| 2002
General Assembly news index Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||