"O" likely to pass or
fail by the skin of its teeth
Foes, proponents of same-sex union measure
expecting a cliffhanger
by Alexa Smith, Presbyterian News Service
There's a new report
as of February 14, 2001.
LOUISVILLE -- February 9, 2001 --
Although some unpredictable patterns are emerging as the denomination's
173 presbyteries begin voting on a constitutional amendment that would
ban Presbyterian ministers from performing same-sex union ceremonies, no
one is yet crowing about -- or deeply bemoaning -- the vote tallies.
As of Feb. 8, 48 presbyteries had voted no, and 20 had
voted yes.
Given that 105 presbyteries still haven't voted, the
28-vote margin hardly seems like a big deal. But it is a heads-up for
the folks involved in the fray.
Some conservatives are fretting a bit about losing
several presbyteries that in 1997 backed a constitutional amendment to
forbid the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians. That
political and theological battle was won by the votes of 23 presbyteries
(97 to 74), but any card-carrying Presbyterian liberal will protest that
the votes in many of those presbyteries were very close.
So far, eight presbyteries have switched: that is,
voted for the 1997 ordination amendment, but voted no on the current
proposal.
In liberal circles, this has produced a cautious
optimism.
They're aware that it works both ways -- presbyteries
that opposed the 1997 amendment could well support this one. One
presbytery, Plains and Peaks in Colorado, has done just that.
However, if five more presbyteries that voted for what
was called "Amendment B" vote against what is known now as
"Amendment O," the measure is defeated. This raises the stakes
for the conservatives.
"I'd like to paint a rosier picture but our
baseline has been what people did on 'B,'" said the Rev. Jerry
Andrews of Chicago, the chair of the Presbyterian Coalition, an
evangelical caucus organized to oppose the ordination of practicing
homosexuals within the Presbyterian Church (USA), but has broadened its
agenda since then. "Of the 25-vote margin of those who voted for
'B,' we can't afford to lose more than 12. So there's a lot of work to
be done."
Andrews is keeping himself busy these days calling
pastors and telling them to get their elders to the presbytery meeting
and to prepare themselves to speak for "O."
Interestingly, both camps agree on that point: There
is much work to be done to turn out the voters at presbytery meetings.
"I suspect that this is going to be close,
whichever way it comes out very close," said Pam Byers of the
Covenant Network, one of the more visible liberal opponents of
"O."
This is no time for jumping to conclusions.
As a longtime Presbyterian Pro-Life strategist working
to overturn the denomination's pro-choice stance, Terry Schlossberg has
been analyzing PC(USA) politics for a long time. She says "O"
is following the trajectory that "B" took, with more liberal
presbyteries voting first, conservative ones voting later. "The
early votes on 'B' looked like the outcome would be against 'B,'"
she says, "but we saw a major shift occur just during this period
"We're beginning to see votes from the South
beginning to pick up now. I have high hopes for that."
"B" -- officially, constitutional provision
G.60106.b -- did pick up momentum over time, drawing strong support in
the Southeast, the Southwest, parts of Texas, all of Southern California
and huge chunks of the northern Plains states.
But opponents of "O," while not exactly
cocky about their lead, aren't willing to concede that time is on the
conservatives' side. They say the problem is the amendment itself.
It reads: "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."
"The amendment never mentions same-sex unions,
but casts a very broad swath over 'ceremonies or events 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,'"
said Byers, noting that many ministers say they are uneasy about what
those words actually mean. "Pastors feel constrained. They deal
with difficult and troubling personal situations all the time, even
those who would never perform a same-sex union.
"Does this mean you cannot baptize a child of a
gay couple or an unmarried couple?" Byers asked, arguing that there
are complicated pastoral problems that the writers of the amendment have
overlooked.
That's what Richmond, Va., pastor Ben Sparks argued in
an opinion piece in The Presbyterian Outlook, an independent
weekly news magazine for Presbyterians. Sparks told the Presbyterian
New Service that he thinks "O" is very different from
"B." Where "B" merely created guidelines for
governing bodies, "O," he says, is "meddling."
"It moves into a whole other arena, when pastors
and sessions are bound by how to practice ministry in the local church.
As a pastor, I have to make judgment calls every day of my life, and I
don't want anything in (the constitution) to prohibit me as a pastor
from using my own judgment (in matters like) what I may pray
about," he said.
That argument annoys Schlossberg -- and she has put a
point-by-point rebuttal on the Presbyterians Pro-Life Web page. For
openers, she argues that "local freedoms," both pastoral and
governance-related, have always been restricted by the constitution; the
Book of Order contains criteria that govern baptism, requirements of
specific language for communion and other ceremonies."
In other matters, according to Schlossberg, sessions
have always been restricted under the constitution in property matters,
including needing presbytery approval to secure a mortgage -- and many
would like fewer constraints. But "O," she says, is different;
it is not just another restriction. "It sets a standard for the
moral life of our congregations," she says.
The Rev. Parker Williamson, executive director of The
Presbyterian Layman, feels just as strongly about the matter; he
says arguments that the amendment ought to be defeated because of
"restrictions" are just "scare tactics."
"Ministers are not free to say or do anything
they want in worship. The Book of Order is filled with
regulations," he said.
It was the broad language of the amendment, which
never actually mentions same-sex unions, that sank "O" in
Dakota Presbytery, a 23-congregation Native American presbytery in
Minnesota -- one of the presbyteries that backed "B" in 1997.
Presbytery Executive Elona Street-Stewart said the
2-10 vote was apolitical, and the voters weren't drawing parallels
between how they voted four years ago and how they were voting in 2001.
"They just didn't want to do anything that might
create a (pastoral) barrier," Street-Stewart said, emphasizing that
common-law marriages and baptisms of single-parent babies are not
unusual in Native American congregations. Church officers found the
amendment's wording too non-specific to feel good about it -- although
there was little support among the voters there for same-sex unions.
On the other hand, Tom Phillips, the executive in
Plains and Peaks Presbytery, which switched the opposite way, said
"O" got support because the voters understood it to outright
prohibit same-sex unions, and do not believe same-sex unions are
Biblical.
The key issue for "O" supporters, and
opponents, is getting voters to presbytery meetings. They point out
that, in Plains and Peaks, the amendment passed by three votes.
In fact, the nip-and-tuck nature of the debate is
evidenced by the fact that the General Assembly vote that sent it to the
presbyteries in the first place was decided by just 17 votes.
Andrews says turnout is critical, and he thinks it may
be down in some presbyteries where evangelicals in particular are weary
of voting and re-voting on the same issues and frustrated when outcomes
of votes seem to be disregarded.
"Turnout for these kinds of things is usually
clergy," he said, noting that elders often are the swing-votes, and
many of them are "defecting in place" by failing to turn out
or speak up.
What's different about this vote -- according to
Andrews, who has weathered both the vote on "B" and the more
decisive (59-114) vote the following year on "A" (an attempt
to strike "B" from the constitution) -- is a reduction in
energy.
Andrews said he's been more pro-active, calling up
ministers and elders and urging them to organize within presbyteries. He
says turnout is critical because votes on "O" are being
decided by very few votes.
Williamson agreed that there is a lack of passion this
time around. He said he isn't sure whether Presbyterians are just tired,
or don't appreciate the significance of an amendment that he believes is
about the sanctity of marriage itself.
Eugene TeSelle, an outspoken liberal who belongs to
the Witherspoon Society and is a General Assembly veteran, agreed that
turnout is the key. "Both sides are saying that this depends on
getting out the vote, not what is said in the floor debate," he
said. "And both sides are eloquent."
TeSelle believes the "wave of the future" is
moving against hard-line conservatives, and the current vote on
"O" is beginning to reflect that shift. Byers noted that the
Covenant Network believes at least 38 overtures aiming to change or
delete G.60106.b from the constitution will go to this year's GA.
But Williamson -- also a veteran of many such battles
-- says talk of a trend is premature.
"It is a very close contest," he said.
"And we may experience what we experienced with the presidential
election: We may all be sitting in Florida, waiting on the last
presbytery to vote.
"At this point, based on the 35 percent who've
voted, we can't tell much."
Andrews' analysis goes like this: Evangelicals and
conservatives need to redouble their efforts and make what he calls
"a faithful witness."
"I'd like to win by a larger majority than we did
on 'B,'" he said, "but it looks like a smaller majority."
