This translation is not completely accurate as it was automatically generated by a computer.
Powered by
By Linda Bloom*
4:00 P.M. EST May 3, 2011 | DETROIT (UMNS)
The United Methodist Judicial Council has upheld the church’s current
prohibition against same-sex marriage, found in Paragraph 2702 of the
United Methodist Book of Discipline. A UMNS photo by Mike DuBose.
View in Photo Gallery
A policy adopted but not yet implemented by United Methodists in New
York and Connecticut that essentially would have allowed clergy to marry
someone of the same sex has been declared “null, void and of no effect”
by the denomination’s top court.
The United Methodist Judicial Council has ruled that the New York Annual
(regional) Conference resolution and policy allowing clergy “to marry
at their own discretion” is “neither valid nor constitutional.”
Meeting April 27-29 in Detroit, the council upheld the church’s current
prohibition against same-sex marriage and pastors who are “self-avowed
practicing homosexuals,” found in Paragraph 2702 of the United Methodist
Book of Discipline.
The Judicial Council also acted on other items, including requests for reviewing past decisions.
While an annual conference can adopt rules and regulations for its own governance, the council wrote in Decision 1185,
the conference “may not legally negate, ignore or violate provisions of
the Discipline with which they disagree even when the disagreement is
based upon conscientious objections to those provisions.”
The rationale for the New York policy, adopted in 2010, is that same-sex
marriage is legal in Connecticut; that such unions performed legally
elsewhere “are legally recognized by state agencies in New York”; and
that the church’s Articles of Religion – doctrinal standards found in
Paragraph 103 of the Book of Discipline – state that it is “lawful” for
clergy “to marry at their own discretion.”
Contending that the Articles of Religion take precedence over other
church laws outside the church’s constitution, the New York Conference
declared that “we believe that any… provision (in the Discipline)
denying marriage to some clergy is unconstitutional and contrary to the
Articles of Religion…” In particular, Paragraph 103 would take
precedence over Paragraph 2702, the conference said.
Seeking ‘declaratory decision’
Before enacting the policy, however, the New York Conference resolution
asked the Judicial Council to make a “declaratory decision” about its
validity.
Council members initially considered the New York petition at its
October 2010 meeting in New Orleans, but deferred a decision to the
April meeting. Implementation of the policy was stayed pending the
court’s decision.
Because the petition appeared on both the October and April dockets,
supporters and an opponent of the policy appeared before the council
during oral hearings at both meetings.
During the oral hearing in October, J. Ann Craig and Nehemiah Luckett —
New York lay members who identified themselves as gay — argued that
Article XXI of Paragraph 103, declares marriage is “a moral structure
available to all.”
At the April oral hearing in Detroit, Kevin Nelson, a New York lay
member who identified himself as “a straight person who supports full
inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons,” argued
that when John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, wrote the Articles of
Religion, he did not define marriage as heterosexual.
Both Craig and Nelson noted that Wesley was well aware that issues of
class, race and status could be used by society as an attempt to block
marriage. “Although John Wesley may not have considered marriage for
same-gender couples in Article XXI, the discretion of clergy to marry
whom they choose can be understood on the face of it as a challenge to
arbitrary social categories and prejudices,” Craig said at the October
hearing.
Nelson declared that allowing other parts of the Discipline to supersede
Article XXI is “anti-Wesleyan” and ignores the ministry of Jesus to the
marginalized, “a marginalization that in today’s world and in the case
of gay and lesbian persons is all too often perpetuated by the very
Christian churches that have been charged by God with opposing it.”
Noting that “there is no acceptable place between humiliation and
respect,” Nelson asked council members to “take a controversial but
clearly proscribed stand” to uphold the church’s constitution and affirm
the New York Conference policy.
Opposing the policy
The Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, a Wisconsin pastor representing Good News, an
unofficial United Methodist evangelical caucus, spoke in opposition of
the policy at both the October and April hearings.
In April, he called the New York petition one “in a string” of actions
over the years by various annual conferences to urge Judicial Council to
circumvent General Conference, the church’s top legislative body, and
change the denomination’s stance on homosexuality.
The Book of Discipline already has defined marriage as the union of one
man and one woman, and an annual conference “does not have the right to
legislate on the duties of clergy,” Lambrecht added. Nor can it
unilaterally change the definition of marriage in Article XXI to include
same-gender marriage without General Conference action, he said.
Supporters of the New York Conference policy mainly use experience and
cultural tolerance as the basis for their support, he contended. “Such
arguments may be somewhat persuasive in a legislative arena, but they
show how weak the legal standing of this policy is,” he told council
members.
Because marriage between one man and one woman was the norm in Wesley’s
time, there was no need for him to define marriage in the Articles of
Religion, Lambrecht argued.
While heterosexual marriage was the norm then, Nelson replied, Wesley
was well aware of other restrictions on marriage related to class and
race. “Wesley did not set a definition in Article XXI, he set a
principle,” he said.
Attempt at immunity
In its ruling, the Judicial Council found that Paragraph 2702.1 does not
“revoke, change or alter” the Articles of Religion or establish new
standards or rules of doctrine contrary to established doctrinal
standards.
The New York Conference policy, however, is in conflict with the
Discipline and “could arguably be advanced as some safe haven from the
complaint process for those clergy who choose to enter into a same-sex
marriage at their discretion…,” the court said. A conference has no
authority to offer such immunity by adopting a policy “that is clearly
contrary to the Discipline.”
Judicial Council does not consider state recognition of same-sex
marriage to be a factor in this case. “The church has a long tradition
of maintaining its standards apart from those recognized or permitted by
any civil authority,” the decision said. “The church’s definition of
marriage as contained in the Discipline is clear and unequivocal and is
limited to the union of one man and one woman.”
In a concurring opinion, four council members – the Rev. Katherine
Austin Mahle, the Rev. F. Belton Joyner Jr., Angela Brown and the Rev.
Susan Henry-Crowe -- wrote that the council’s decision does not comment
“on the appropriateness of the disciplinary language related to marriage
being between one man and one woman. We only say that there is no
constitutional block to such language.”
The Articles of Religion came about when Wesley “revised, redefined, and
adapted” the 39 Articles of the Church of England to fit the context of
the newly formed Methodist church in the United States.
“It is possible to change and interpret the Articles of Religion in
light of the Christian mission for our times,” through votes requiring
specific majority approvals by General Conference and the denomination’s
annual conferences, the opinion noted.
Decisions from the April Judicial Council meeting, Nos. 1182-1189, can be found here.
*Bloom is a United Methodist News Service multimedia reporter based in New York. Follow her at http://twitter.com/umcscribe.
News media contact: Linda Bloom, New York, (646) 369-3759 or newsdesk@umcom.org.
Glad you liked it. Would you like to share?
Add New Comment
Showing 0 comments