NPR reported on March 18:

An ABC/Washington Post poll found that 53 percent of Americans think gay marriage should be legal. The Washington Post reports:

The results underscore the nation's increasingly tolerant views about homosexuals, and parallel a string of recent legal and legislative victories for gay rights advocates.

Five years ago, at 36 percent, support for gay marriage barely topped a third of all Americans. Now, 53 percent say gay marriage should be legal, marking the first time in Post-ABC polling that a majority has said so.

The AFP reports that this is the first time in nearly a decade of polling that gay marriage polls this favorably.

The poll was conducted using a sample of 1,005 adults.

from More Light Presbyterians, Tuesday, February 08 2011
 [posted here 2-9-11]

The decision by the General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission in the Rev. Jean Southard marriage case was released today. Charges had been brought against Rev. Southard, who officiated at the wedding of two women at First Presbyterian Church, Waltham, MA, a welcoming and affirming More Light church in a state where same sex marriage is legal. The charges in the disciplinary case against Rev. Jean Southard have been dismissed by the GAPJC.

We encourage you to read the entire GAPJC findings to understand the nuances of Presbyterian polity and procedures and the basis for their decision.

We also urge you to read the two concurrences from members of the GAPJC that follow the decision. One concurrence raises the question as to whether or not W-4.9001 "provides an effective and unambiguous definition of Christian marriage." The other concurrence calls marriage equality a "human rights issue" and calls upon the General Assembly to amend the constitution to allow for marriage of same sex couples in the PCUSA.  

We give thanks to God for the faithful ministry of Rev. Jean Southard. We are grateful that charges against Rev. Southard have been dismissed by our Church's highest court. We are grateful that the concurrences that accompany this GAPJC decision recognize that marriage equality is a human rights issue and call upon the General Assembly to amend the constitution to allow for marriage equality. 

More Light Presbyterians is wholeheartedly committed to spiritual equality, ordination equality and marriage equality in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA). This GAPJC decision and its concurrences are important steps toward the achievement of marriage equality.  

with hope and gratitude,

Michael
Michael J. Adee, Executive Director & Field Organizer, More Light Presbyterians

Friends,

I am grateful to the GAPJC for finding that I did not violate the constitution or my ordination vows, and pleased that they have made statements in their concurrence calling for change in the church. I wish they could have found a way forward for ministers to do same-gender marriages in the church, but it seems that must wait for another day.

Thank you for your prayers and support. I have attached the decision for those of you who haven't seen it.

Dateline February 4, 2011  [posted here 2-9-11]

University of Iowa student Zach Wahls last week told the Iowa House of Representatives about the meaning of family – when both his parents are women

(CBS) LOS ANGELES – Zach Wahls captured the attention of the nation this week after a speech he delivered defending gay marriage in front of the Iowa House of Representatives went viral on YouTube.

The 19-year-old University of Iowa student spoke during a public forum against House Resolution 6, which would end civil unions between same sex couples. It's a subject that is very near and dear to Zach's heart too. He himself was raised by two women who are now married.

Nine-member panel to deliberate on GA's recommendation   [10-23-10]

Jerry L. Van Marter of Presbyterian News Service reports:

Thomas C. Paisley, chair of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)'s Board of Pensions (BOP) today announced the appointment of a special committee of the board to consider same-gender benefits under the BOP's healthcare and pension plans.

The nine-member special committee will be charged with developing the BOP's response to this summer's action by the 219th General Assembly "to urge the Board of Pensions to extend benefits to same-gender domestic partners of plan members and to the children of those same-gender domestic partners."

The Redwoods PJC could have done better
[8-30-10]

Arnold Rots comments on the basis of his own experience as a member and clerk of the PJC of the Presbytery of Boston:

My comments on the Redwoods decision, for what it's worth:

I don't understand what is happening with PJCs. First it was the Synod of the Northeast PJC that rendered a highly questionable decision (case 09-05), now it is the Presbytery of the Redwoods PJC. (The Synod PJC’s 09-05 reversed the Presbytery of Boston PJC's decision of not-guilty in the case of the Rev. Jean Southard, upon appeal by the Prosecuting Committee)

I have said it before and I guess I'll have to repeat it many more times: if the circumstances and the context change from the ones in which the constitution's rules were written and to which they apply, and if the church has not addressed the changed environment (or refuses to do so), the PJCs have the obligation to extrapolate the constitution to that new context in the spirit of the constitution.

They cannot simply take a rule that was made in and for another context and apply it blindly.

Both PJCs failed this obligation.

The Synod's 09-05 missed the mark by not acknowledging that the constitution is, at the very least, ambiguous on whether one-man-one-woman is prescriptive.

Redwoods 2010 erred in considering GA PJC 218-12 (a problematic decision in its own right) applicable to a new context for which is was not written.

Even if PJC members do not agree that the definition of Christian marriage is descriptive or that 218-12 cannot be transplanted from civil union to marriage, they ought to recognize that Presbyterians in good standing can reasonably disagree on these questions and that, therefore, there is reasonable doubt of guilt.

It seems that instead they are looking for cover by putting on blinders, returning decisions that keep following old ruts for new journeys, forcing old rules onto new situations.

Do we need better educated members on our PJCs or do we need better instruction for PJCs?

Probably both.

Janie deserves better than what she is getting from the PJCs.

All same-gender couples, all of us deserve better from the PC(USA).

- Arnold Rots

In the interest of full disclosure: I was clerk of the PJC of the Presbytery of Boston during its case 08-01 (Southard); my nomination to the GA PJC at the last GA was challenged and the challenger prevailed in the vote, which leaves me free to comment on cases that still make their way through the system. Nevertheless, that election moved the GA PJC further to the right.

The Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) of Redwoods Presbytery ruled that three of the four charges against Rev. Jane Spahr, for officiating at a service of marriage for two women, have been sustained and the fourth not sustained.

John Shuck has posted a good report, with a sharp commentary, on his blog, shuckandjive

From a local newspaper:

The Marin Independent Journal begins its report on the trial:

August 23, 2010, San Rafael, CA  [8-24-10]

[Today, August 24], the church trial of Janie Spahr begins. It is a continuation of the attempts of some to prevent the marriages of same-gender couples. Eleven of the couples The Rev. Dr. Janie Spahr married during the time they were legal in Cal ifornia will testify before the Permanent Judicial Committee (PJC) at the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Napa. This is Janie's second trial for marrying same gender couples. The first ended when the then PJC ruled that since there is no such thing as "gay marriage" in the church constitution, whatever Janie might have done - it wasn't a marriage in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Case closed.

Not true. This "case" will not be closed until there is a breakthrough. A breakthrough that makes it clear to those who use the lives and loves of people who are LGBT as their rallying cry that this argument is over. That while we are fully willing and committed to healing and working through our differences together, this church and the lives of its members cannot be used to spread fear, hatred, and violence by a litigious and frightened few bent on excluding gay folk. Any place that does that, whatever it is, is not church; cannot be church – in the PC(USA) or anywhere else.

Why Rev. Jane Spahr Should Be a National Religious Icon
[8-24-10]

Imagine being persecuted for celebrating love. Sound like the spirit of a Shakespeare tragedy?

Responses to the Single Presbyterian’s
Top-Ten Questions about G-6.0106b

C. K. Walter

Would you like to add your comments to this conversation?
Just send a note to be shared here.

[6-24-10]

            My December 2008 article, “The General Assembly Got It Right: Top Ten Questions about the Fidelity/Chastity Standard from a Single Presbyterian,” generated three responses on the www.Presbyweb.com and Reformed Pastor websites, all from ministers who not unexpectedly opposed my opinions about G-6.0106b. (The article on the Witherspoon Society website used the “top ten list” made popular by David Letterman as a format to present the viewpoints of an unmarried person and to take jabs at what I considered to be a poor PC(USA) policy, even though the majority of presbyteries repeatedly vote their approval.) But I thank Rev. D, Rev. J and Rev. T for taking the time to commit their thoughts to paper and sharing in the debate. [From your WebWeaver: Sorry, we’d like to provide links to the three comments, but Presbyweb seems no longer to display them.]

            I do apologize to editor Doug King, for his being subjected to Rev. J’s outrage (at me): “How could one person be so wrong about so many things, and still get published on the Witherspoon Society’s website?” Possibly he doesn’t agree that even opposing views deserve a forum for expression.

Areas of disagreement

            Indignation. The writers were uniformly indignant, apparently over my not-so-newsworthy reporting of very typical adult relationships, but possibly over my temerity of challenging G-6.0106b at all, which they equated with promoting licentiousness by single church members. Rev. J said that reading the article “left me sitting in my chair with my mouth open in amazement.” Heck, if I had generated that much emotion when I was dating, I might have gotten married!

            They cited the ten commandments, I cited G-6.0106b. After reading the output of the three Reverends, I could have sworn that the ordination standard was to never break one of the Ten Commandments or else you cannot be ordained for anything. Rev. D asked, “Is there somewhere in the Book of Order that says Christians, including their leaders, no longer have to pay attention to the Ten Commandments, the two great commandments of Jesus, or the golden rule?” But 106b is about the “adultery” commandment only; the remaining nine are not mentioned in “the standard.” What I found most disturbing was that none of the writers addressed the wide range of personal relationships, from platonic to passionate, that they must know exists, if not in their own families, then surely within their congregations. I found the three writers’ lack of acceptance of the human condition to vary between sad and sanctimonious. For example, Rev. T acknowledged that some people may have had “illicit sex” (any outside of marriage), which he includes on his laundry lists of sins such as “marijuana, meth, and cocaine . . . incest, pedophilia, or domestic violence.”

            Getting personal. Less disturbing, and bordering on the humorous, was Rev. J, who said, “I feel for the parents” who have sent their sons and daughters to college where they are taught by me. Ouch! My initial reaction was to return one cheap shot for another, but “Oh yeah, well I feel sorry for your congregation!” would lack originality, as well as impact. As many political campaigns have demonstrated, if you don’t have a strong argument against an issue, then attack the person supporting it. In this case, my day-to-day associations with pretty typical students have given me a perspective into their social world that others lack. Many couples routinely room together, travel together, and live together—yes, Reverends, that does mean sex—before getting married. I am no longer surprised to hear of their sharing a house or apartment or mortgage or baby with a girl friend or boy friend. Sometimes they later get married, sometimes they don’t, and the marriages that do take place may not be in a church and may not be licensed at the County Recorder’s Office. (The latter was borrowed from the homosexual community, whose members have created their own commitment ceremonies, which they often refer to as “getting married,” because most states still bar them from the real thing.) The only real question is, “Do you want these non-chaste members of the MTV generation as members of your church?” Currently, G-6.0106b says that answer is “no”– unless you believe that new members will still join even when told that they are not eligible to be on the governing or serving bodies. But if the answer is “yes, we accept you as you are as future members and leaders, both in the church and in society in general,” then our policies need to state this clearly.

            Their new strategy: ignore the homosexual issue; now the reason for G-6.0106b is sex outside marriage in general. Rev. J maintains that 106b was added because “it’s the very lack of chastity in our culture that led Presbyterians to clarify that we hold a different standard than ‘Dear Abby.’” Rev. T dispensed with the homosexual issue quickly, even theatrically, commenting that, “Hidden fornication (heterosexual or homosexual) may be nothing more than self-inflicted harm, therefore easier to look the other way from, but when it becomes self-affirming and demands acceptance in the name of ‘justice,’ then it becomes a case of gangrene in the body of Christ.” Only Rev. D addressed homosexuality, arguing, “Support of G-6.0106b doesn’t say that gays aren’t welcome in the church; it says that if they desire to enter church leadership, there are standards of behavior to which they as well as straights are expected to adhere. Period.”

            Overall, I found the switch of strategy to be surprising, even clever. I almost believed their sincerity until I mentioned to a local pastor that I considered our presbytery’s vote against the 2009 amendment (to replace G-6.0106b with alternative wording) as saying the PC(USA) doesn’t want single members. She replied, “That’s a different interpretation than I’ve heard before.” Why? Because “everyone knew” that the purpose of 106b was to prohibit the ordination of practicing homosexuals. This was made abundantly clear by a Des Moines Register (April 26, 2009, p. 2A) headline proclaiming, “Presbyterians reject bid to allow gays to be clergy.” The article made no reference to G-6.0106b or the fidelity/chastity clause, because none was needed. Regardless of the “them, too” strategy that the other writers espoused, the public perceives the intent of 106b as targeting one group and one group only.             

            To his credit, Rev. T (a Ph.D. seeking graduate student) found room to forgive past behavior in G-6.0106b, saying that I had depicted “the standard as if it requires absolutely no sin in one’s past. That’s ludicrous! The rest of us know better. We know that the past is not an issue for our ordained leaders, as long as it stays in the past. If people sin in the present, there’s this practice called ‘repentance.’ We require it all the time from pastors who fall into sexual misconduct.” Later on he said that Jesus “endorsed only marriage between a man and a woman, and singleness without sex. It is eisogetical (sic) fantasy to claim otherwise.” Now my Ph.D. was issued 38 years ago when the newest term was “paradigm,” so it wasn’t much help in understanding what he said, but Dictionary.com suggests that he meant to say “eisegetical,” which means “an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.”

Some areas of agreement.

            Importance of membership. Along with the expected sensitive topics came some points we seem to agree on. Rev. D seized on my example of restricted leadership opportunities for women within the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches. He noted that they “were both doing something the PCUSA wasn’t – growingl” At least he and I both recognize the desirability of membership growth (and neither of us advocate that Presbyterian churches limit women’s roles). However, as Roger Loomis explains, there is much doubt that the reported Mormon church growth is real. He points out that many (he says most) converted Mormons become inactive a scant 6 months following their conversion (“Mormon Church Growth,” at the Association for the Sociology of Religion, August 15-17, 2002, Chicago). Salt Lake Tribune writer Peggy Fletcher Stack cited a City University of New York survey reporting “about the same number of people said they had joined the LDS Church as said they had left it,” giving a net growth rate of zero (“Keeping members a challenge for LDS church,” June 22, 2006). Roman Catholic growth figures may be more realistic, but are influenced by immigration and the church’s policies on family size that differ greatly from ours. In other words, their membership growth, whether real or claimed, had nothing to do with their practice of limiting roles for women.

            My concern about membership is that prospective single adult Presbyterians will be less likely join after reading G-6.0106b, since many – possibly most – of them will see that they would not be eligible for the decision-making boards of the church. In other words, 106b gives the PC(USA) two levels of membership, i.e., ordination-eligible and ordination-ineligible, a situation more likely to reduce attractiveness of the PC(USA) than increase it. Here I am again in conflict with Rev. J, who wrote, “I can think of several of our church’s elders who would never have accepted leadership in the PC(USA) unless our constitution had this clear, Biblical standard.”

            Need to enforce the standards. The area of greatest agreement among Rev J, Rev D, and me was the call to enforce G-6.0106b. (Rev T did not address enforcement.) After I wrote, “without some formal means of application, this policy statement moves from a clear-cut requirement to ineffectual verbiage,” Rev D said, “If true, this is a legitimate gripe, but the answer isn’t to repeal the standard, but to implement a process like the one he suggests.” He continued later, saying “if someone is going to put herself forward for leadership in an organization where she is going to be looked to as a moral exemplar, she’d better be prepared to answer for any aspect of her conduct, regardless of whether she’s married or not.” When I noted that 106b was seldom mentioned in my church (unless I brought up the subject), Rev. J responded that the practice in his church was “to teach prospective elders and deacons all of the ordination standards, and examine them regarding their ability and willingness to uphold them.” He noted that, “we’ve had a few folks drop out of the process.”

            As a follow-up to G-6.0106b, clause G6.0108b in the Book of Order places responsibility for adherence on both the candidate and the governing body, saying: “The 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.” An example of a formal procedure for vetting candidates for the ministry, and consistent with G6.0108b, has been adopted by the Denver Presbytery. Their Committee on Ministry’s information gathering form asks candidates to affirm that they “meet the standards for ordination described in (G.6.0106b & G6.0108a & b)” or “declare a scruple.” (The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines scruple as “an ethical consideration or principle that inhibits action,” and Wikipedia says “misgivings.”) Candidates who state scruples in response to the ordination standards will be presented “for examination on the floor of Presbytery.” With a scheduled time of “no less than three hours,” the examination covers theology, statements of faith, “suitability for the call being considered and sharing details of life in Denver Presbytery.”

Suggestion for action

            How to apply G-6.0106b. My suggestion is that the PC(USA) now direct its member churches to be diligent in explaining and applying G-6.0106b to all nominees for ordained offices of the church. As the Denver seminary experience indicates, candidates for minister expect a thorough vetting, but, in my observation, the procedure to examine potential nominees for deacon and elder often omits any reference to 106b. Most of the documented cases involve candidates who just happened to be gay or lesbian; for example, a single page of the November 2006 Layman included articles about a gay prospective minister and a lesbian elder. My twist, if treating all people alike can be so termed, should appeal to Rev. J, who wrote, “G-6.0106b is not about homosexuals and homosexuality. It’s an equal opportunity standard that calls all of us to repentance.” Equal opportunity to serve is the objective, I agree.  

            To insulate unsuspecting nominees from the potential embarrassment of having their private lives discussed by people who were not involved in them, local church nominating committee members might be well-advised to review both G-6.0106b and G6.0108b with potential office-holders through a scripted exchange, such as: “As you may be aware, the Book of Order calls for the ordained (ministers, deacons, or elders) to – and I quote – ‘live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.’ At your interview with the Session, you will be asked if you have complied with the chastity requirement while single and the faithfulness requirement during your married life, or if you would prefer to repent for past violations of either of these requirements or claim a scruple.”

            Alternatively, nominees could be given a brief form to complete, with simple multiple-choice responses: 

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Why same-sex marriage is an American value.
[1-13-10]

The New York Times reported on January 8, 2010:

TRENTON — The State Senate on Thursday rejected a proposal that would have made New Jersey the sixth state in the nation to allow marriages involving same-sex couples. The vote was the latest in a succession of setbacks for advocates of gay marriage across the country.

After months of intense lobbying and hours of emotional debate, lawmakers voted 20 to 14 against the bill, bringing tears from some advocates who packed the Senate chambers and rousing applause from opponents of the measure, who also came out in force. The vote ends the effort to win legislative approval of the measure, and sets the stage for a new battle before the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The story concludes:

After the vote, hundreds of supporters of the bill gathered in front of the State House to exchange tearful hugs and plot the next move in their effort. Among them was Christi Sturmont, who said she and her partner were dejected, but not despondent.

“We were holding out hope that we’d be able to get married and have full citizenship,” she said. “But now we’ll have to settle for second-class citizenship. For now. We’re not done fighting.”

For the full NYT report >>

Presbyterian pastor and blogger John Shuck responds with “A Saturday screed” which begins:

Portugal shows it is more decent and humane than New Jersey (and virtually every state in the U.S.) by voting for marriage equality yesterday. Thank you, Portugal! Congratulations for standing up to the bullies!

The parliament approved the measure and it will likely be signed into law by conservative president, Anibal Cavaco Silva. ...

The bill removes a reference in the current law to marriage being between two people of different sexes. “This law rights a wrong,” Prime Minister Jose Socrates said in a speech to lawmakers, adding that it “simply ends pointless suffering.”

Righting a wrong. It is that simple, isn't it? So what is the score on right vs. wrong these days?

Gay marriage is currently permitted in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway. Canada, South Africa and six U.S. states also permit it.

We have a way to go. The largest obstacle to justice, to righting wrongs, to being simply decent human beings will be of course, Christians.

Let us consider the Christians. Here is what they are up to as reported by The Raw Story:

The conservative American Family Association is calling on President Barack Obama to fire Amanda Simpson, Obama's transgender appointee to the Commerce Department, because the appointment "puts the weight of the federal government behind the normalization of sexual deviancy."

PVJ's Facebook page

Mitch Trigger, PVJ's Secretary/Communicator, has created a Facebook page where Witherspoon members and others can gather to exchange news and views. Mitch and a few others have posted bits of news, both personal and organizational. But there’s room for more!

John Shuck’s new "Religion for Life" website

Long-time and stimulating blogger John Shuck, a Presbyterian minister currently serving as pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Elizabethton, Tenn., writes about spirituality, culture, religion (both organized and disorganized), life, evolution, literature, Jesus, and lightening up.

Click here for his blog posts.

John Harris’ Summit to Shore blogspot

Voices of Sophia blog

Heather Reichgott, who has created this new blog for Voices of Sophia, introduces it:

Got more blogs to recommend?