Stated Clerk's office shows bias against Amendment O By John H. Adams The Layman Online Friday, December 29, 2000 updated at 1:50 p.m. E.D.T. Text of Amendment O "Scripture and our Confessions teach that God's intention for all people is to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness. Church property shall not be used for, and church officers shall not take part in conducting, any ceremony or event that pronounces blessing or gives approval of the church or invokes the blessing of God upon any relationship that is inconsistent with God's intention as expressed in the preceding sentence." An official document of the Office of the General Assembly, which is under the direction of Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick, includes an evaluation of Amendment O that focuses on reasons to oppose the constitutional amendment. The evaluation is published in the December edition of Continuing the Journey, which goes to General Assembly commissioners. Some of the commissioners are ministers and elders who will vote at presbyteries when they consider Amendment O and 16 other proposed constitutional amendments. Continuing the Journey evaluated all of the proposed amendments, but "the language of the Amendment O evaluation reflect a particularly strong bias against the proposal," according to Parker T. Williamson, executive editor of The Presbyterian Layman. Instead of citing rationale for Amendment O, the evaluation claims there will be three negative outcomes if Amendment O is approved: 1) "a provision in the Book of Order would now state what cannot be done on church property, otherwise under the control of the session; 2) "the blessing of God would be withheld upon any heterosexual marriage of any couple not living in chastity in singleness; 3) "the role of a pastor or other church officers in counseling on church property people who may be considering a same-sex ceremony is unclear, as is the nature and kind of pastoral care that may be provided without being subject to possible ecclesiastical discipline. For example, attending a funeral of a gay person or administering baptism to the child of same-sex parents could cause trouble." "Such conclusions are not precisely enumerated within the text of Amendment O," Williamson said. "There is no reference to funerals or baptisms. And even in its strictest application, the amendment does not – and cannot – withhold God's blessing from anyone. The blessing of God is the prerogative of God." Kirkpatrick's office also published analyses of the amendments in a report that went to the 173 presbyteries. That report included outdated information that suggested that Amendment O was unnecessary. It quoted a conclusion of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution which determined that no legislative prohibition against same-sex unions was necessary because such services were clearly in violation of the Book of Order. However, the Advisory Committee's determination was made before the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly ruled that same-sex unions were permissible. It was this decision by the Permanent Judicial Commission that spawned the overture to prohibit same-sex unions. But Kirkpatrick's office did not mention the Permanent Judicial Commission in its report to the presbyteries or the December edition of Continuing the Journey. "I am deeply troubled by the stated clerk's published bias in these two instances," Williamson said. "The General Assembly debated Amendment O many hours before approving it and sending it to the presbyteries. As an officer of the General Assembly, the stated clerk should represent the General Assembly and not his personal opinion."

Respond to this article

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