Presbyterians still divided on same-sex unions
Same-sex marriage continues to be a major dividing point among members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) as the issue moves closer to a vote this week by the denomination's governing body.
The 220th General Assembly is expected to address the subject of gay marriage and the church before its biennial conference wraps up on Saturday in the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, Downtown. Groups on opposing sides of the debate met separately on Tuesday as the church's committee on Civil Union and Marriage Issues considered proposals both for and against gay marriage.
A church survey released in February showed that 51 percent who participated opposed gay marriage.
“Love is not limited by gender or race,” said Michael Adee, executive director of More Light Presbyterians, a pro-gay group within the church that sponsored a luncheon and panel discussion on marriage equality in the Westin Hotel. “We stand on the right side of love, on the right side of history.”
For conservative Presbyterians, the church, which is the largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States, already is on the right side.
“Those people who don't believe what Jesus has to say and do not follow him have a very serious fate in store for them,” said Phil Chatman, 79, of Westminster, Calif., who attended a luncheon sponsored by OnebyOne, a group of “ex-gay” Presbyterians.
Linda Harvey, director of Mission America, a Columbus, Ohio-based Christian pro-family organization, warned more than 100 people who attended the OnebyOne event at Tonic Bar & Grill about the dangers of same-sex marriage on children and anti-bullying campaigns in public schools that promote acceptance of homosexuality.
“No one needs to embrace homosexuality to end bullying,” Harvey said.
Harvey said homosexual urges can be overcome and that when the issues of homosexuality and same-sex marriage come up, people who speak against them “should not be marginalized.”
Churchgoers need only to look to the Bible for guidance on the issue, she said.
“It's very clear in Scripture, in the sexual morality code — it's one man and one woman,” Harvey said. “People are trying to insert the issue and say it's like the Golden Rule (do unto others). That's a clear distortion.”
Sentiment among nearly 200 people gathered at the More Light event was quite different.
“I've got a dog in this fight, and I am tired of being told by my colleagues that this isn't an important issue,” said the Rev. Paul Rodkey of Bethany Presbyterian Church in Spokane, Wash., who is the father of two gay children. “Presbyterian pastors have been absolutely shameful, and they've been to seminary.”
The civil union and marriage committee is considering several proposals. Some want the committee to recommend that the General Assembly confirm the denomination's definition of marriage as “between a woman and a man,” while others call for a constitutional amendment to change the marriage definition to between “two people.”
Others have asked that the church allow pastors to officiate at same-sex wedding ceremonies in states where gay marriage is legal.
On Tuesday, the committee introduced a fourth proposal that would ask for another study on gay marriage that would table the issue for four years.
“That's like punting on first down,” said Arthur Fullerton of New Baltimore, N.Y. “I think we know what the issues are. Now, it's time to choose.”
The General Assembly is expected to consider the committee's recommendation on Friday.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.