219^th General Assembly
2010

Committee 12: Civil Union and Marriage Issues

If you have comments on these issues, or material you would like us to post here, please send a note, and if possible we will add it to this page.

by General Assembly Communications Center, Office of the General Assembly
[posted here 7-14-20]

MINNEAPOLIS — A summary of the 219th General Assembly's actions on issues of civil union and Christian marriage:

What did the General Assembly do? What has changed?

The General Assembly approved both the final report and the minority report of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage and ordered they be sent out for study by the wider church. The vote was 439 in favor, 208 against, with 6 abstentions. By this action (sending both reports for study) the Assembly maintained the definition of marriage as between "a man and a woman." With the action to send the reports for study, no change has occurred, or is pending.

What does it mean?

The special committee report provides descriptive material on the historical and theological aspects of marriage, as well as a look at current laws on same-gender partnerships and their children, and the place of same-gender covenanted relationships in the Christian community. They commend to the church their covenant, "Those Whom God Has Joined, Let No One Separate" as a guide for Presbyterians to come together to discuss difficult issues when there is disagreement. The minority report, also approved for study by the Assembly, concludes that Scripture is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman only and does not support any kind of sexual behavior outside heterosexual marriage. The minority report also contains a covenant for the wider church to use.

What next?

The special committee report and the minority report will be prepared for distribution as one document to the wider church. By sending both reports to the wider church, it is the hope of the Assembly that Presbyterians will find helpful background information on civil unions and marriage, as well as material to help individuals and groups remain together as they work through these difficult issues.

Where can you learn more?

David True reflects on the GA’s decision to decide nothing about same-sex marriage.   [7-12-10]

Of the GA (in)action he says “it is sad and frustrating to see the church refuse to even consider the measure,” especially when the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts at the same time was ruling that “the Defense of [Straight] Marriage Act is unconstitutional.”

But all of this leads him to value “what it means to be protestant” – maintaining a healthy skepticism about the institutional church, and always open “to discern the will of God being done beyond our wills and walls – recognizing that the church is far bigger than any one denomination and that God is far bigger still than all the denominations combined. Indeed, God’s grace abounds, even in the law, sometimes especially in the law.”

True says of himself: “I'm a student of theology and ethics, with a special interest in political culture and debates. I teach at Wilson College and co-edit the journal Political Theology.”

The Assembly acted on Thursday night, to designate their approval of a long, indecisive report on civil unions and marriage as a response to most of their other actions, left three proposals to redefine marriage as “between two people” rather than “between a man and a woman.” This morning a commissioner moved for reconsideration of that action, on the grounds that she had not understood the scope of the action at the time of the vote – and indeed it was not very obvious at the time.

Assembly rejects defining marriage to be "between two people"
[7-9-10]

During the Assembly session on Thursday evening, Committee 12, Civil Union and Marriage Issues, presented two of the most anticipated actions of this long day: First came Item 12-12, to approve the lengthy report on civil union and marriage, whose drafters sought to examine the meanings of and differences between marriage (or “Christian marriage”) and civil unions, while maintaining the bonds of trust and cooperation that they had worked hard to build among their diverse group. In a series of complex moves, the original report and a minority report were eventually folded together, although just how that will be carried out remained a bit vague.

An introductory look at some issues coming to this committee

[6-10-10]

Click on any Item number to jump to the full text on the PC-BIZ website.

The question of marriage has drawn widely differing proposals – some moving toward an inclusive affirmation of marriage, and others rejecting any change. For simplicity, we’ll group the two sets of items, rather than listing them in numerical order.

Affirming marriage as inclusive

Item 12-02, from the Presbytery of Baltimore (with at least three concurrences from other presbyteries), would change the definition of marriage from “a civil contract between a woman and a man” to “a covenant between two people [which] according to the laws of the state also constitutes a civil contract.”

The rationale for this change is headed, “Marriage: Sharing God’s Gift Equitably in the Church.” It notes that “The Directory for Worship defines marriage as ‘...a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family.’ (W-4.9001). A gift conferred by God can only be denied by God the giver of the gift.” Marriage as “an act of pastoral care” is clearly a way in which the church supports loving, committed relationships, and there is no reason why such support should be limited to heterosexual couples alone. The biblical and theological arguments are opened with a quick refutation of the assumption that there is a single “biblical meaning of marriage”:

A search of marriage in the Scripture reveals a broad spectrum of historical marriage practice, some of which we consider foreign today, including: Solomon’s many wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:3), levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-6 and Matthew 22:23-32), wives sharing female servants with their husband to increase progeny (Genesis 29-30), divorce and remarriage as equal to adultery (Mark 10:12), and women being commanded to remain silent in church and only ask their husbands for instruction at home (1 Corinthians 14:33-36).

Beyond that simple biblical diversity, Jesus’ command to love God and neighbor is presented as the basis for all discussions of marriage – and that love as Jesus spoke of it and lived it is never limited by questions of gender or sexual orientation.

Item 12-03, from the Presbytery of Hudson River, proposes essentially the same changes in the Directory for Worship. The rationale opens with this fine statement of what marriage is all about:

Marriage is beyond gender. It refers to the commitment of two people to live beside each other with a love expressed as tenderness and justice. It refers to the deep promise to live together through the thick and thin of their journey together through the years. It refers to the mystery in which the love of God meets, is joined to and made manifest in the love of two people whose hearts are a home place to each other. ...

The closing paragraph is equally helpful:

The proposed changes would grant all loving couples the right to have their marriages performed in our congregations, strengthening all our communities and families, gay and straight, since they allow us to recognize the love of two hearts declaring themselves to be a home to each other, before God, with gratitude.

Item 12-04, from the Presbytery of Boston, proposes similar amendments in the Book of Order. In support of these changes, the rationale reminds us of the action of the 218^th General Assembly in 2008, which voted by 516 to 151 to “request the Stated Clerk, the General Assembly Council, and other representatives of the PC(USA) to urge state legislatures and the federal government to apply the principle of equal protection to same gender couples and their children.” That action also expressed support for congregations and pastors as they seek “to extend pastoral care as well as outreach and evangelism to samegender couples and their nontraditional families who are more and more our neighbors on our streets and our fellow members in our pews.” Given this action, and the trend among the states to legalize same-sex marriage, “[i]n a state where same-gender marriage is recognized under the law, it is pastorally unconscionable to apply exclusionary principles to certain members of the congregation by declining to perform their marriage.”

Item 12-06, from the Presbytery of Albany, would set forth a new Authoritative Interpretation of W-4.9000, giving discretion to ministers and sessions to allow or to forbid “ceremonies for couples who have obtained a civil marriage license.” Such an action, if approved, would go into effect immediately upon the conclusion of the Assembly, and not need the ratification of presbyteries. Item 12-08, from the Presbytery of Des Moines, does roughly the same thing, as does Item 1209, from Heartland Presbytery.

Item 12-07 from the Presbytery of East Iowa, and Item 12-10 from National Capital Presbytery, propose amendments to W4.9000 to make the definition of marriage inclusive.

Opposing any change in the understanding of marriage

Item 12-01 from New Covenant Presbytery calls on the Assembly to “joyfully affirm the historic, biblical, and Christological teaching of the Church on the topic of marriage as a gift from God to bless humankind. As God created man and woman, so does God call some men and women to live together as husband and wife. God’s very order and design defines the institution of marriage.” [But you might look back at the “biblical meaning of marriage” as summarized so neatly in the Baltimore overture.] Item 12-11, from the Presbytery of Central Washington, is basically the same as this one.

Item 12-05 from the Presbytery of Prospect Hill urges the Assembly to “[d]eclare ... that no sexual union outside the bonds of marriage, such as in cohabitation, adulterous affairs, domestic partnerships, or same-sex unions, is within the will of God or approved by this body.” [We note that this list does not seem to include Jesus’ apparently negative views of the marriage of divorced persons.]

Presbyterian Voices for Justice regards the issue of same-gender marriage as a matter of justice and compassion, and supports changes in Presbyterian governance that would expand our understanding of marriage to include two persons of the same gender.

Discussions on God’s Gift of Marriage

by Rev. Mr. Donald E. Stroud, That All May Freely Serve: Baltimore

(Latest update October 2009)

[6-28-10]

Development of Concepts of Marriage in the Western Tradition

Contemporary concepts of marriage, either in the church or civil society, have rarely if ever been subject to intense study or factual and historical scrutiny and thus re-evaluation.

In a real sense, the legalization of same-sex marriage in six states (MASS, Maine, NH, CONN, VT, IW) and Washington, DC, as well as elsewhere in the West, has become the occasion for our contemporary study and historical scrutiny of what marriage is.

The historical record of the development of marriage rituals and laws in the West indicates that they are much more a product of historical accident than is commonly understood.

Things that we think of as marriage and things tied to marriage are things we have inherited from a multitude of sources, both Judaeo-Christian and what western Christendom termed “pagan.”

Thus what a marriage is depends very much about one’s place in time. Much contemporary objection to same-sex marriage that asserts of opposite-sex marriage that “It’s always been done this way so nothing has or can change!” is false.

Some examples:

King Solomon (I Kings 11:3)

What does marriage mean after marrying for the 699^th time?

King Solomon was married to 700 wives at the same time, not to mention the 300 concubines at his disposal for sexual intercourse. There is no religious or civil disapproval registered by Hebrew society. Rather, wife # 1 and wife #700 were all considered legal marriages.

By modern sensitivities most people would think that Solomon was not even married to wife #2.

Jesus’ disapproval of divorce is not a disapproval of polygamy. (Mk. 10:2-12; Matt. 19:-1-12)

Jesus’ disapproval of divorce is aimed at mitigating the abuse of women by men who easily and conveniently jettison a woman as his wife. A man could become “one flesh” with many women (King Solomon did so 700 times!) and still be considered married to each of them.

By modern sensitivities most people are perfectly comfortable with divorce (Both the UPCUSA and PCUS amended The Westminster Confession of Faith to allow divorce for other reasons than adultery or desertion.) but are uncomfortable with polygamy.

What does marriage mean when it is primarily the exchange of the woman as a commodity from one man or household (father of woman) to another man or household (man or household paying “bride-price”)? What does marriage mean when the validation of marriage is it’s consummation in sexual intercourse?

Genesis 29 – Jacob purchased Leah and Rachel as a work contract.

Deut. 22:22-29 prohibitions against adultery and rape were to protect the economic value of a woman’s virginity, i.e.. her “bride-price,” not primarily her nonnegotiable humanity: A man could not commit adultery against his wife but only against another man by sexually devaluation of his property, i.e., a woman he had married or to whom he was engaged.

Cultures that regarded marriage as the means of a male obtaining a woman through purchase or abduction or negotiation also viewed sexual intercourse or consummation as the primary sign of ownership and thus validation of the marriage.

Developing Christian concepts of marriage

Most dramatic shift in attitude toward marriage by early first century Christians was the devaluation of marriage - at best a triviality at worst a dangerous distraction.

What is the use of marriage in light of the imminent end of the world?

Hebrews 13:4 “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled.” Speaks to this attitude of devaluation of marriage.

I Cor. 7:2-6,7-9,32-40 Paul allows marriage as antidote to erotic sexual feelings; argues for celibacy over marriage

As it became clear that the world was not coming to an end, Christian attitudes toward marriage became more amenable. However, Christians adopted the prevalent pagan social attitudes and rituals of Roman society rather than create specifically Christian regulations.

Nuptial rituals developed during the first 1000 years of Western Christendom, but the church did not regularize them and those that were developed were aimed at protecting the property rights and succession of royalty and the rich. Priests alone were required to have their nuptials blessed. It was not until 1563 at The Council of Trent that a categorical prohibition was made on marriage for clerics, monks, and nuns – aimed principally at protecting the church’s own wealth and property.

Heterosexual marriage, although taking on sacramental value, was not declared a sacrament until 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council. (13^th century)

Pagan Attitudes on Marriage Adopted by Western Society

“Let us not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments.” Shakespeare, Sonnet 116

Contrary to popular preconceptions and prejudices the Christian Church is not the principal source of many prevalent attitudes about marriage and marriage rituals. In essence the church preserved many Roman pagan concepts regarding marriage. 

The classical formulation of Roman Law: nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit: “consent, not cohabitation, makes a marriage” (Boswell, Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe, p.50.) 

To Romans “consenus” : “consent” and “maritalis affection” : “marital affection” are essential to marriage not sexual consummation 

St. Augustine developed a three part reason for marriage: faithfulness (fides) offspring (proles) a solemn vow (sacramentum) but agreed that fides and sacramentum alone made a marriage without offspring – This view was a necessity since the church taught that Mary and Joseph never had biological children and Mary was a perpetual virgin. But their marriage was legitimate. 

A fourth century BCE ceremony for making legal a relationship between male lovers in Crete included a Declaration of Consent and appears to be the antecedent of the this most important element in Roman and Christian law. (Boswell, Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe, p. 91.) 

Roman marriage customs adopted by Christians: usually took place in June, bride put on special clothing and put her hair in a traditional arrangement, veiling of bride, main ceremony in which couple give their consent to marry took place in home or in public place in presence of family and friends, matron of honor join couples right hands, exchange of gifts, prayers for the couple to “God, the Founder of the World,” a priest (from pagan temple) presiding or officially witnessing the marriage, finally the signing of contract, if any (Boswell, Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe, p. 48, p. 165.) 

From the Roman legal customs arose the Roman church’s default teaching that it is the couple themselves who marry themselves to each other by their consent and the church, Christian priest, and congregation are present only as witnesses to what the couple do: marry themselves to each other. 

This concept is still the view of the Roman Catholic Church and also the viewpoint of most Protestant denominations. 

Preliminary Report of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage (Note: This section was written in October 2009 before the Committee’s final report.) 

The Committee was asked to consider among other things the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community. It is disappointing that even though the Committee quotes John Boswell’s book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, particularly his chapter on “The Development of the Nuptial Offices,” they chose not even to mention his groundbreaking research on the factual existence from at least the 4^th century into the 15^th century of liturgies in the church for blessing same-sex unions. 

Boswell meticulously documents 100 ceremonies of same sex unions catalogued in folios of liturgical documents under the headings of “marriage” (gamos) and “crowning” or “matrimonium.” These ceremonies are usually catalogued in order of: heterosexual betrothal, heterosexual first marriage, heterosexual second marriage (after the death of a spouse), office of same-sex union. 

In contrast to the heterosexual marriage ceremony that took place in public and only moved to the door of the church in the 11^th century, the same-sex ceremony was always celebrated inside the church and was explicitly created as a Christian ceremony for Christian same-sex partners. It included elements similar to the heterosexual ceremony but with some differences: the couple standing hand in hand at the altar, the wrapping of the hands in a stole by the priest, imposition of crowns, walking in circles around the altar, use of a cross, declaration of consent, a feast held with family and friend.  

A principal difference were the scriptural texts for the ceremony. The same-sex ceremony used John 15:17 (Jesus’ command to love one another); 15:17: 1, 18-26 (Jesus’ prayer that those in the church may be united in love); I Corinthians 13 (Selflessness of love); Psalm 133 (How good it is for brothers to dwell in love.) 

(Scripture for heterosexual marriage: Gen. 1:26,28; (man created in God’s image; be fruitful and multiply); Proverbs 19:14 (a prudent wife); Psalm 121:8 (God keep our going out and coming in); Psalm 127: 1, 5 (God builds the house; happy is the man who has many sons); Matt. 19:1-6 (What God joins let no one put asunder.) 22: 2-14 (Parable of the marriage feast) John 2:1-11 (Marriage at Cana); 3:27-29 (Rejoicing at the bridegroom’s voice); I Cor. 6: 15-20 (anti-fortification); 7:25-31,32-35 (commending celibacy!) 

The theological context for the same-sex ceremony is fidelity, mutual affection and selfless love. 

This script for marriage is very much in keeping with modern sensitivities toward marriage. Contemporary understanding of marriage: partners expect to be permanent and exclusive; may produce legitimate heirs if they so choose, creates mutual rights and responsibilities, legal, economic, and moral.

Preliminary Report of Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage 

Most significant findings related to duty to make the pastoral ministry of Christian Marriage available to all members 

“PC (U.S.A.) marriages are required to fulfill the legal requirements of civil marriage.” pp. 3, 20 

The proposed overtures to amend the Directory For Worship to include same-sex couples fulfills this requirement and more. Unlike the present language of the Directory For Worship that does not meet this requirement, the proposed amended text recognizes that in some states where PC (U.S.A.) churches are offering pastoral ministry the law accords civil marriage rights to same gender couples. 

“Institutions like marriage and parenthood are not simply mechanisms to fulfill individual needs and aspirations. They are also thick, multi-layered realities that speak to the needs for meaning and identity within human community.” p. 21 

“Both those who wish to expand marriage to include same-gender couples and those who wish to defend marriage as it has been understood in the past value this larger social dimension of marriage to the point that civil unions cannot adequately substitute for marriage. Those who wish to expand marriage are not simply looking for state and/or federal benefits. The struggle is not just to be able to visit in hospitals, share health care or custody of children. Same-gender couples desire to belong – to be accepted by the larger society. Benefits that are conferred without the larger social dimension of marriage are not an adequate redress to their grievance.” p. 21 

We (the Special Committee) find that the compromise suggestion of civil unions/domestic partnerships offer no true solution to the struggle around same-gendered partnerships. Civil unions/domestic partnerships provide neither the state-sanctioned benefits nor the societal acceptance that marriage (expanded or not) offers.” p. 29 

The proposed overtures to amend the Directory For Worship are designed specifically to meet the larger social dimension that same gender couples seek through their access to Christian marriage in the church and also in civil marriage as sanctioned by law. 

Why now? 

The church does not choose the times in which it finds itself. The church is confronted with the reality of expanded civil marriage rights for same gender couples and the real pastoral needs of its same gender members. 

In the pursuit of justice and equality for those denied rightful access to the gifts of God and the full pastoral ministry of the church, the possibility of not succeeding at one point in time is no reason not to keep putting forth the effort. 

It is always vital to keep placing before the whole church via the General Assembly and the presbyteries this issue as Baltimore Presbytery did in 2008 in order to keep the conversation going as well as the movement toward justice and equality progressing. 

(Example: Many times we tirelessly placed delete G-6.0106b overtures before GA and amendments before presbyteries and this last time it was nearly deleted. At the same time, after 31 years of trying, “definitive guidance” finally has no effect as a result of the AI approved at the 2008 General Assembly.) 

Ours may be a minority opinion re: same=sex marriage and an uphill struggle but we are called to remain faithful to that struggle even in the face of momentary defeat. 

The 195^th GA’s (1983) commentary on the fourth Historic Principal of the PC “That truth is in order to goodness,” is stated in its document “Historic Principals, Conscience and Church Government.” (p.9) 

“Presbyterian polity provides a process through which the church can be responsive to new understandings of truth. One of the ways that the church recognizes that its understanding of truth changes is through the process of constitutional amendments. Provisions for such amendments within the constitution of the church are official recognition that new understandings develop and require changes in the way we state what we believe and the way we express that belief in our action.” 

“Because Presbyterians take the connection between faith and practice so seriously, our debate over issues has a particular intensity. Obedience to God’s will is at stake in our discussion of doctrine. Conflict is inevitable in the life of the church. Peace within the church at the expense of faithfulness is the peace of a corpse. Agreement is not always a sign of obedience, but may more likely be a sign that we do not care very passionately about a particular issue.” 

Finally, very instructive are lines from Martin Luther King’s sermon, “Staying Awake through a Great Revolution.” 

“Human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals who are willing to be co-workers with God. And without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. So we must help time and realize that the time is always ripe to do right.”

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep Voices for Justice going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Presbyterian Voices for Justice" and marked "web site," to our PVJ Treasurer:

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!

Voices of Sophia blog

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

John Harris’ Summit to Shore blogspot

John Shuck’s Shuck and Jive

Got more blogs to recommend?