The PJC has ruled on the Jane Spahr case and removed her censure. (HT: Presbyweb) From the ruling:
Headnotes
1. Marriage is defined by the Book of Order W-4.9001. W-4.9001 provides four definitional statements of marriage. As a definition, W-4.9001 does not prohibit an officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) who has been authorized to perform marriages from performing a same sex union. A same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage under W-4.9001.
2. Same-sex unions are not to be confused with marriages. There are differences between same sex ceremonies and marriage ceremonies. The liturgy should be kept distinct for the two types of services. Officers of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) who are authorized to perform marriages shall not state, imply, or represent that a same sex ceremony is a marriage because under W-4.9001 a same sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage.
3. Standard of review. Factual determinations made by a trier of fact are accorded a presumption of correctness. Questions of constitutional interpretation are not subject to the same deference.
Excerpt as presented at Presbyweb:
"…By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage. The [Synod PJC] found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.
"The [Presbytery PJC] was correct in finding that by performing the two ceremonies at issue, Spahr did not commit an offense as charged. Therefore, the SPJC erred in determining that Spahr was guilty of violating W-4.9001 or the 1991 AI…
"The charge was for performing a marriage ceremony, which by definition cannot be performed…"
I'll leave it to the legal minds to sort this one out but there you have it.
Leave a Reply