PCUSA official urges U.S. legislators to reject Federal Marriage Amendment By Craig M. Kibler The Layman Online Friday, March 5, 2004 A top Presbyterian Church (USA) official, despite a statement by Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick to the contrary, is urging Congress to reject a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment backed by President George W. Bush. Photo of Ivory speaking at press conference A copyright photo of the Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory speaking at a press conference Wednesday. This photo appears on the Web site of the Human Rights Campaign, which calls itself 'the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization with members throughout the country.' Just before a Senate subcommittee began hearings on the issue Wednesday, the Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory, director of the PCUSA's Washington Office, told a press conference outside the Capitol that "the Federal Marriage Amendment should be rejected." The proposed amendment, which upholds the traditional concept of marriage, states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. 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 hearings, by the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, come after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state must allow gay marriage – and as local officials in California, New York, New Mexico and Oregon began permitting them. On Thursday, a news report in Salt Lake City's Deseret News stated that, "While some churches praised the amendment plan, others publicly opposed it – including the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations and the Presbyterian Church (USA)." In response, Kirkpatrick told Presbyweb on Thursday that, "The General Assembly has not taken any action to 'publicly oppose' the Marriage Amendment. However, the 214th General Assembly in 2002 voted to disapprove Commissioner's Resolution 02-06, which would have called for support of the Federal Marriage Amendment." While it's true that the General Assembly did not take any action to "publicly oppose" the proposed amendment, Kirkpatrick makes no mention of the public speech by a high-level denominational official opposing the amendment, nor did he mention the e-mail containing the speech that was sent out across the country by Giddings Ivory. In her speech urging Congress to reject the amendment, Giddings Ivory said, "The First Amendment already protects religious organizations from governmental interference in such matters, and constitutional definitions of marriage therefore are unnecessary." She said "the states should permit gay and lesbian couples access to the civil status of civil marriage and to share fully and equally in the rights and responsibilities of that status. We urge Congress to reject this Amendment." Instead of affirming the Book of Order's statement that marriage is only between a man and a woman, essentially the same as the proposed amendment, Giddings Ivory sought to define marriage as having two categories – "civil marriage" and "Christian marriage" – and implying that they were of equal status. Giddings Ivory claimed that support for civil rights meant that "the Presbyterian Church General Assemblies have affirmed the civil right of same sex-couples to civil marriage." That contradicts the actions of general assemblies and a ruling by the highest court in the denomination, which addressed "civil unions" and not "civil marriage." In fact, nowhere in those actions and the ruling has there been an endorsement of civil marriage but, instead, they stated that civil marriage should not be recognized. "Ministers should not appropriate specific liturgical forms from services of Christian marriage or services recognizing civil marriage in the conduct of such ceremonies," the 2001 ruling by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission stated. "They 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." That order also said a service blessing same-sex couples must not constitute an endorsement of homosexual practice, which Giddings Ivory's statement does. Here is the complete text of Giddings Ivory's speech on the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment: "Good morning, my name is Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory and I am the director of the Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Our General Assembly is the national decision making body for this 215 year old historic denomination with approximately 11,500 congregations all across in the United States and Puerto Rico. "In 2002, the 214th annual meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted disapproval for the resolution calling for a Federal Marriage Amendment. At this same Assembly, the commissioners voted to reaffirm decades of social witness policy that supports the civil rights and non-discrimination for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation. "Indeed, the Presbyterian Church's position on this issue dates back to 1996 when the General Assembly was asked to consider commenting on a 1995 pending decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court on the issue of equal access to the civil rights of marriage for same sex couples. In response to this resolution, the (1996) General Assembly commissioners voted to affirm the 'church's historic definition of marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman, yet recognizing that committed same-sex partners seek equal civil liberties in a contractual relationship with all the civil rights of married couples, we urge supporting legislation in favor of giving civil rights to same sex couples.' "We are mindful that a proposal to amend the Constitution should not be taken lightly and that the Federal Marriage Amendment would restrict the civil rights of millions of Americans. Civil rights are a fundamental right under the constitutions of the United States and its constituent states and territories. Because these constitutions guarantee equal protection of the law, the states should permit gay and lesbian couples access to the civil status of civil marriage and to share fully and equally in the rights and responsibilities of that status. We urge Congress to reject this Amendment. "Notably, while the Presbyterian Church General Assemblies have affirmed the civil right of same sex couples to civil marriage, it retains its religious practice and view that 'Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. 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. [Presbyterian Church (USA) Book of Order W-4.9001].' "Few decisions by religious bodies are more central than who can take part in important religious rituals or services, including marriage. The Constitution bars any court or legislature from requiring any religious institution or person to perform marriage ceremonies for anyone. Indeed, the Constitution protects houses of worship in their freedom to limit marriages on whatever theological grounds they choose. The First Amendment already protects religious organizations from governmental interference in such matters, and constitutional definitions of marriage therefore are unnecessary. The Constitution should be reserved for affirmation of democratic values of equal rights and not delineating negative ones. Again, the Federal Marriage Amendment should be rejected."

Respond to this article

Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links