08335
April 29, 2008
Spahr found innocent in same-sex marriage case
GAPJC: by definition, same-sex 'marriage' cannot be performed
 Jane Spahr
LOUISVILLE – In a reversal of a lower church court ruling, the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr has been found not guilty of violating the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s constitution by performing same-sex ‘marriages’ for two lesbian couples.
The complicated verdict  of the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly (GAPJC) — the church’s highest court — was released on Tuesday (April 29).
It found that Spahr, who conducted two same-gender marriages in 2004 and 2005, could not be “found guilty of doing that which, by definition, cannot be done.”
The ruling reverses a decision by the PJC of the Synod of the Pacific, which on appeal had ordered the PJC of Redwoods Presbytery to “rebuke” Spahr for conducting the ceremonies after the presbytery’s court had found her “not guilty.”
“The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001” [of the church’s constitution], the court held. That provision defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
“One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister,” the GAPJC ruled, “and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.”
The GAPJC was careful to distinguish between the two types of services. “We do hold that the liturgy should be kept distinct,” it said. “We further hold that officers of the PC(USA) authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage.”
The court noted that Spahr “reported regularly to her presbytery about the same sex unions and ‘weddings’ she performed” but “these services were not described as marriages in her reports as found in the record of the case.”
But church courts have previously ruled that there is no constitutional prohibition against performing same-sex ceremonies, as long as they are not “represented” as a marriage.
“The PJC’s decision reaffirms what our directory of worship says, that marriage is between a man and woman and that no officer should present a same-sex union as a marriage,” said the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the PC(USA)’s General Assembly. “At the same time the decision recognizes the importance of pastoral care and the appropriateness of same-sex blessing services as long as they are not presented as marriage ceremonies.”
The GAPJC said that it had been acknowledged by those who heard the case at every level that Spahr had acted in light of her call and the church’s call to participate in a caring and compassionate ministry to persons who have been marginalized, who are faithful Christians and who wished to be accepted in every way as full members of the body of Christ.
As such the high church court said that Spahr may consider herself to be acting in the role of a “prophet” to the church, while others would reject such a characterization.
“Prophecy contains risk and uncertainty both for those who would speak and for those who listen,” the ruling said. “The role of a prophet carries consequences. It is the burden of a church officer to accept the consequences of his or her actions that are the ecclesiastical equivalent of civil disobedience.”
The ruling noted that the PC(USA)’s General Assembly has affirmed several times and in various ways its commitment to stand for the “just and equal treatment of all persons regardless of sexual orientation.”
“While drawing a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual practice, and maintaining behavioral standards for ordained office that further limit sexual practice, the church has attempted to minister to GLBT persons through the efforts of ministers like Spahr,” the GAPJC ruling said. “The tension the church has created between sexual orientation and sexual practice has led to turmoil and dissension that will likely continue for some time. The difficulties faced by this Commission in deciding this case reflect that tension.”
The ruling said that while Spahr justified her actions in marrying the two lesbian couples by claiming freedom of conscience as delineated in the PC(USA)’s Book of Order, and a foundational principle of the denomination, that repeated reliance on freedom of conscience to justify her actions “ignores the thrust of this principle: freedom of conscience must be exercised within bounds.”
The court ruled that a church officer’s conscience is “captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church” so long as he or she continues to seek or hold office in that body.
| 
