We got news this week that two closely watched judicial cases with implications for the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be heard by their appropriate judicial bodies this coming October.

The first of these will be the trial of the Rev. Janet Edwards by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh on October 1.

This hit the news last week with a news release by the Presbyterian News Service about the case.  I am at a bit of a loss to explain the release of this news item at this time unless a) it was a slow news day or b) the trial date was announced.  I’ve been looking for documents related to the trial on line and not finding any so all I can say is that I suspect, but can not confirm, option b.

A quick recap of this case:  The Rev. Janet Edwards preformed a same-sex ceremony for a lesbian couple back in June, 2005, and everyone involved with the ceremony is describing it as a “wedding.”  A complaint was made, an investigating committee formed, and the investigating committee filed charges.  One little problem… The charges were filed four days past the deadline that investigating committee had to meet so the Presbytery PJC dismissed the charges.  A new complaint was made, a new investigating commission went to work and filed five charges, in a timely manner, and back in June the PJC reviewed the charges and dismissed three of the five.  Among the new charges was the accusation that parts of the ceremony were not Christian, but contained Buddhist elements related to the beliefs of one of the partners.  That was part of what was dismissed on the theory that if a ceremony is prohibited in the first place you can’t specify how it should be done properly and what is improper.  (If that theory sounds familiar hold the thought, I’ll get back to it in a minute.) (Story on the dismissal from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.)

A few notes and comments on the story so far:  In researching this I have seen several references (like this article) to the original dismissal as being for “statute of limitations.”  While I am not a lawyer I understand the statute of limitations to relate to the offending action not to the judicial process itself.  Since the investigating committee missed a deadline this would be an administrative problem.  And since the charges were brought up again clearly it is still within the time limit on the alleged infraction.  Related to the charges being brought up again, this new hearing has also been referred to as “double-jeopardy.”  Again, the first case did not actually go to a “guilty/not guilty” decision, therefore it is not double jeopardy in my understanding of the process.

It is interesting to consider the outcome of this case.  It would have been within the realm of possibility, based on the current legal precedent, that all the charges against the Rev. Edwards were dismissed back in June since that hearing was after the Spahr v. Redwoods Decision in April.  That decision said “By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage.”  It went on to conclude that since it can’t be a marriage the minister can not be guilty of preforming a same-sex marriage.  All the Presbytery PJC had to do was cite this precedent and “game over.”  But this result would have been about as unsatisfying as the GAPJC decision.  And the dismissal of three of the charges does have that similar ring of legal reasoning.  (I am not a church lawyer so if I missed a critical point in our polity here related to the hearing or dismissing the case please let me know.)

So it appears that the PJC sees a point in hearing this case.  It could be that Edwards will be acquitted based on the Spahr decision.  It could be that she will be acquitted or found guilty on the merits, rather than the definitions, of this case alone.  If it is decided on its own merits I would expect this to make its way up the judicial ladder and it could be the case for a more satisfying decision by the GAPJC.  The GAPJC has eight new members elected at the last GA so the balance or dynamics of the body may change.  We will have to see.

In the latest Presbyterian News Service article Rev. Edwards is quoted as saying “I’m sure that we will press the parts of the Spahr decision that
supports my presiding at the wedding and calling Brenda and Nancy’s
relationship a marriage. We see a lot of positive
things in the Spahr decision.”  I would say to be careful what you ask for because by the Spahr decision says that by definition the relationship can not be a marriage.  The Rev. Edwards has a web site with information about the case called “A Time To Embrace” on which she has posted a statement in her defense.  The brief makes specific reference to W-4.9001.  After the GAPJC made clear in the Spahr decision that this is the definition of marriage and anything that deviates from this is not a marriage, Rev. Edwards now argues (p. 31) “[W-4.9001] is definitional in nature only, and contains none of the language that the Book of Order instructs must be present to set forth a mandate or a prohibition.”  The brief goes on to argue that there is no prohibition on same-gender marriage ceremonies, seeming to ignore that the fact that one of the decisions they cite says there are no such thing as same-gender marriage ceremonies based upon the Book of Order passage Edwards’ cites.  While Edwards’ brief does briefly mention the definition in the Spahr, it puts much more emphasis that an acquittal is in order because the charges are vague and not defensible.

There is one additional point in the brief that I find interesting.  It makes note of the action by the 218th General Assembly to vacate previous Authoritative Interpretations regarding the ordination of self-acknowledged practicing homosexuals, and it discusses the GAPJC’s divided interpretation of W-4.9001 as to its applicibility as a prohibition against future same-gender marriage ceremonies.  The brief does not mention that the 218th General Assembly, by a wide margin (I got it right that time), voted not to propose changes to W-4.9001.

Well, that was more of a point-by-point analysis than I had planned.  OK, on to the second case…

Regarding the second judicial case, I was notified two days ago that trial is now set to begin on the “Episcopal Church Cases” before the California Supreme Court on October 8.  Don’t let the “Episcopal” distract you; there are amicus curiae briefs for this case filed by Clifton Kirkpatrick and the national office, the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, and the Presbyterian Lay Committee.

This case is a test case on church property in California and comes from three linked cases out of Los Angeles and Orange Counties where three Episcopal Churches tried to realign with other Anglican communions outside the US and the Dioceses went to court to keep the property.  The case is highlighted by the fact that in this particular case the Appellate Court decision used the “highest government” legal theory, which favored the hierarchical church and ruled against the particular churches in their bid to hold onto property, while other Appellate Court decisions have used the “neutral-principles analysis” which would favor the particular congregation.  With both on the books the Supreme Court took the case and will decide on the proper legal theory for our state.

I probably don’t need to remind any regular readers that there is a lot riding on this state Supreme Court decision.  Along the length of the State of California there are Presbyterian, as well as Episcopal, churches trying to get out with their property and there are rumblings of more waiting in the wings for this decision.  I don’t know how the decision in this case could influence other places in the country, but it could have a major influence on the denominational map in California.  Then again, we could go with the “Graceful Seperation” that General Assembly endorsed.  Again, time will tell.