Synod court says ministers may 'wed' homosexual couples By John H. Adams The Layman Online Monday, May 3, 2004 In a blockbuster decision that could add fuel to the fiery battle over homosexual issues in the Presbyterian Church (USA), a synod court has declared that the denomination's constitution and its highest court do not prohibit Presbyterian ministers from "marrying" same-gender couples. Thus, the synod court reversed the decision by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, which had publicly reprimanded the Rev. A. Stephen Van Kuiken for conducting same-sex marriages. After the reprimand, the presbytery voted to remove him from its membership roll because he publicly conducted another same-sex marriage ceremony in violation of church law. Van Kuiken was the pastor of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati, a congregation that has defied church law for more than a decade. With former Mount Auburn members, he has started a nondenominational congregation called The Gathering. He said he no longer chooses to be a Presbyterian minister. In its 6-4 decision, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Covenant ruled that the Presbytery of Cincinnati's court "erred by interpreting Section W-4.9001 of the Book of Order to prohibit same-sex marriages." W-4.9001 clearly states what Presbyterians have historically believed, that marriage – whether civil or in the church – is between a man and a woman only: "Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. 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." The synod court majority also challenged the wording of a ruling by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly, the denomination's highest court, which prohibited Presbyterian ministers from marrying homosexual couples. Referring to a case titled Benton et al v. Presbytery of Hudson River, the court's majority said, "While stating that same-sex marriages are impermissible, it [the GAPJC] avoids an outright prohibition by using the words 'should' and 'should not' in guidance for sessions and ministers which the Preface to the Book of Order defines as 'highly recommended.'" Thus, the majority of the synod court concluded from its reading of Benton et al v. Presbytery of Hudson River that same-sex marriages are both "impermissible" and optional by citing the "preface" of the Book of Order – which is not part of the constitution. The majority also cited a 1991 General Assembly authoritative interpretation prohibiting same-sex marriages. It concluded the Book of Order, the Benton case and the 1991 authoritative interpretation were too vague to interpret as prohibitions against same-gender marriages. Four members of the synod court – John Becker, Ross Jackson, Ken Hook and Richard Shipley – issued a strong dissent, saying that the "majority interpretation flies in the face of reason and logic." They called the majority opinion "an improper and unjustified attempt to rewrite the clear and unambiguous meaning of W.9001 … to reach a result … which can only be accomplished by a legislative amendment" to the Book of Order. The dissent added: "There is nothing in the record to indicate that the lower court (the Presbytery's PJC) exercised any 'interpretation' other than citing that interpretation in the Directory for Worship, in the General Assembly's Authoritative Interpretation of 1991, in the 2000 decision of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission in Benton et.al … and in common parlance, [that] marriage exists between a man and a woman." The minority concluded, as had the denomination's highest court, that "the plain meaning of W-4.9001 is that Christian marriage is between a man and a woman" and said it "is not the role of an appellate court such as this PJC to 'fill in the blanks' in the Book of Order." The key issue in the case was whether church law prohibited Presbyterian ministers from marrying homosexual couples. The court did not sustain Van Kuiken's argument that the presbytery erred by denying that he had a right to follow his conscience by performing same-sex marriage ceremonies. The majority said the presbytery acted properly on the conscience issue, noting, "While the Book of Order affirms freedom of conscience, it also affirms that there are bounds to that freedom and that '[t]he decision as to whether a person has departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made initially by the individual concerned but ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves." Also on the conscience issue, four members of the synod court who voted with the majority against prohibiting same-sex marriages – Peggy Schmitz, MacKay Taylor, David Van Dyke, and Mary Waterstone – voted against the presbytery. In their dissent, they said: "The PJC either chose not to address the issue of conscience or assumed that the issue of gay marriage is an 'essential of Reformed faith and polity.' This omission is especially significant in a situation which sets a literal reading of certain passages of the Bible against portions of the Book of Order regarding love and inclusion, and where there is a significant lack of unanimity on the provision among members of the church."

Respond to this article

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