Here, however, is the technicality that spared Southard: The Spahr case was decided on April 28, 2008—seven weeks after the Duhamel-Herwig ceremony in Waltham. The 2011 GAPJC found that the unequivocal prohibition in the Spahr decision could not be applied retroactively to condemn Southard. Therefore, she was “not guilty.”

Many traditional Presbyterians have been upset about the decision of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) in the case of Jean K. Southard v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) through the Presbytery of Boston.

Their distress is understandable. Southard, a now-retired minister in Waltham, Massachusetts, performed a purported “marriage” between two women—despite the fact that the PCUSA constitution states clearly and repeatedly that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The result of the GAPJC decision is to confirm a Boston judicial panel’s verdict that Southard is “not guilty” of violating the PCUSA constitution.

It would appear that Southard has defied the church’s doctrine of marriage with impunity. Nor is she the first same-sex-marrying minister who has been let off the hook in this manner. It is no wonder that some people are angry.

But, as is often the case with GAPJC decisions, it is necessary to look past the verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty” and examine the underlying reasoning. What is most important is not whether Jean Southard is punished or not punished—at most she would have received a mild rebuke—but what the church says about marriage. By that standard, the Southard decision contains much that is strong and positive.

An Open-and-Shut Case

On its face, the case would seem to be open-and-shut. On March 1, 2008, Southard officiated at a ceremony for Jennifer Irene Duhamel and Sara Jane Herwig. The program called it “A Service of Christian Marriage and Worship.” It followed very closely the standard wedding liturgy in the PCUSA Book of Common Worship. After the exchange of vows, Southard pronounced the two women to be “joined together in holy marriage” and invited them to “seal the covenant of marriage with a wedding kiss.” This “marriage” was entered into the registry of First Presbyterian church of Waltham and attested to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by Southard’s signature on the wedding certificate.

Under current Massachusetts law, the union of Duhamel and Herwig is recognized as a marriage. But it is not a marriage under the PCUSA constitution. The Westminster Confession defines marriage as a “spiritual and physical union [of] one man and one woman” (6.131) —an understanding also reflected in the Second Helvetic Confession (5.246) and the Confession of 1967 (9.47).

The Book of Order defines marriage thus:

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)

A 1991 authoritative interpretation of the General Assembly stated that “it would not be proper for a minister of Word and Sacrament to perform a same sex union ceremony that the minister determines to be the same as a marriage ceremony.” A 2000 GAPJC decision allowed same-sex union ceremonies, but with the proviso:

Ministers should not appropriate specific liturgical forms from services of Christian marriage or services recognizing civil marriage in the conduct of such ceremonies. They should also instruct same-sex couples that the service to be conducted does not constitute a marriage and should not be held out as such.

Obviously, Southard did appropriate liturgical forms from a service of Christian marriage. She did determine the union of Duhamel and Herwig to be the same as a marriage and instructed them that it was a marriage. So how could the Waltham minister possibly be judged “not guilty”? The answer is that she got off on a technicality.

Read More: http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=1801

Alan Wisdom has served since October 1994 as Vice President of the Institute on Religion & Democracy. While serving as IRD Vice President, Alan also served as Director of Presbyterian Action for Faith and Freedom (formerly called Presbyterians for Democracy and Religious Freedom

Alan is an elder at the Georgetown Presbyterian Church and a member of the Global Mission team of the National Capital Presbytery. He received his B.A. in history, English, and Spanish from Rice University in Houston, Texas; then did two years of graduate work in history at Princeton University; he received a second B.A., in education, from the University of Maryland. For more information about Presbyterian Action, visit http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=231

[Editor’s note: The original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid, so the links have been removed.]