(See the evening update at the end of the post)
Word is being relayed on the internet that in the Pittsburgh Presbytery PJC case, where the Rev. Janet Edwards was being tried for conducting a same-sex wedding, the PJC unanimously acquitted her. (More Light Presbyterians, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) While the full decision is not available yet the early indications are that this decision was based upon the confusing decision in the Spahr v. Redwoods case and I have trouble seeing how anyone can claim a real victory in this case. (If you want the background check out my post from August on the topic.)
To quote the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s early report:
the Rev. Janet Edwards, ruled that the constitutions of the church and
the state of Pennsylvania define marriage as an act between a man and a
woman. Therefore, judges said, the minister could not have done what
she was accused of doing.
This appears to be based on the decision rendered in the GA PJC Spahr v. Redwoods case that no minister in the Presbyterian Church can be found guilty of conducting a same-sex wedding ceremony because no such thing exists. A wedding is between a man and a woman so a same-sex wedding is a contradiction in terms. As you can probably guess this legal reasoning did not really satisfy anyone.
It seems reasonable to me that the lower Presbytery PJC relied on this legal decision, a reasonable thing to do even if it is not a particularly satisfying decision. Hence, my feeling that there are no real winners in this case. No new legal territory is broken and the situation is none the clearer. From a personal perspective, the Rev. Edwards was cleared of the charges. From a polity/legal point of view, the ceremony she openly admits conducting was not a wedding according to the PJC. So guess what, we have to wait for another appeal, maybe not in this case though, to make its way to the top.
The Rev. Edwards, in her defense brief, said that she would invoke the Spahr v. Redwoods case, but certain of the other parts of the decision. Be careful what you ask for because it looks like she got a clear decision that there are no same-sex weddings.
Finally, I see this case in the light of the previous GAPJC decisions. Clearly the news media has not seen that yet and a lot of the “people in the pews” won’t see the connection either. Because it lines up so closely with Spahr v. Redwoods I see this as pretty much a “non-decision” in terms of the big picture of resolving this issue. But most of the Presbyterian world will not see the nuances in here. Hold on tight for the stormy seas.
UPDATE – 8:30 PM: The verdict has been posted by More Light Presbyterians and pretty much holds to my inference above with one significant exception: The verdict makes it clear that the prosecution, with whom the burden of proof lies, did not prove their case. The verdict does rely heavily on Spahr v. Redwoods and the says, in part:
Pennsylvania
civil law defines marriage as male-female, so a marriage between two
women cannot be a marriage regardless of what occurred in the ceremony.
Because the Book of Order does not recognize a same-sex marriage, it cannot be an offense to attempt to do the impossible.
Therefore,
the commission does not find that the accused committed an offense by
performing a ceremony between two people of the same gender.
Also,
there is no evidence that the accused held out the ceremony as a
marriage. It could be inferred from the order of service, but it has
not been proved. The accused’s belief about whether the ceremony was a
marriage has not been proved, either.
The decision in Spahr
states that “one cannot construe same-sex ceremonies as marriages for
the purpose of disciplining someone, but not as marriages for ecclesial
purposes.”
It does leave open the question of whether this PJC would have convicted if better evidence had been presented, even though “it cannot be an offense to attempt to do the impossible.”
From reading this over if the evidence is not there I’m not sure that there are procedural grounds to appeal. We will see if the prosecution thinks otherwise.
The end is near………..
2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
–Merilyn Vaughn