In fact, the truly honorable way to change this policy would entail amending related texts in the Book of Confessions, which requires ratification by two-thirds of the presbyteries, sandwiched between two affirming GAs. That was done properly a generation ago to soften the Confessions’ condemnation of divorcees.

The Covenant Network (CN) long has pursued the daunting agenda both “to work for the removal of ordination barriers to the full participation of LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered] Presbyterians, and to support the mission and unity of the denomination.”

The 2011 adoption of Amendment 10-A, which lifted the denomination-wide, categorical ordination standard of living a life of “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness,” brought them a long-sought breakthrough on the equalization front. So, the board of CN waded into the next round of anticipated debate, the effort to open the doors of marriage to LGBT persons.

They weighed the possibility of change in the light of the legalization of same-sex marriage in several states. They also considered their unity goal, referring to those “who are troubled by the change in ordination standards.” They announced Oct. 28 that they will not seek or support overtures to the 2012 General Assembly (GA) that would change the constitutional language that specifies:

Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith. (W-4.9001)

Instead, their statement says that they will “encourage overtures seeking Authoritative Interpretation to protect pastoral discretion to celebrate same-gender marriages where they are sanctioned by the civil authorities.”

Wrong answer. Yes, it looks like a smaller pill for traditionalists to swallow. It would allow the performance of same-sex weddings only in parts of the country that have determined for themselves via secular votes or court rulings that that is the just thing to do.

[Editor’s note: This article is incomplete. The link (URL) to the original article is unavailable and has been removed.]