The decision in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission case 218-12, Spahr v. Presbytery of the Redwoods was issued shortly after noon Pacific Time. The decision is posted.
Bottom line: Rev. Jane Spahr was found not guilty of conducting “same-sex marriages.”
Quick and dirty summary of the legal reasoning: The Book of Order prohibits same-sex weddings but permits blessing same-sex unions. These were not weddings, there for Rev. Spahr should not be disciplined. Here is a quote from the decision:
The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined by W-4.9001. These were ceremonies between women, not between a man and a woman. Both parties acknowledged the ceremonies in question were not marriages as defined by the Book of Order. It is not improper for ministers of the Word and Sacrament to perform same sex ceremonies. At least four times, the larger church has rejected overtures that would prohibit blessing the unions of same sex couples. By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage. The SPJC found Spahr guilty of doing that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.
Later in that section the PJC seems to reason their way out by saying “The charge was for preforming a marriage ceremony, which by definition cannot be preformed.” It sounds like they are saying that no one can ever be found guilty of preforming a “same-sex marriage ceremony” because there is no such thing in Presbyterian polity.
Where does this leave us? In my quick reading it appears that this decision has maintained the status quo: no weddings but there may be blessings.
Reaction: I have seen none yet but I suspect in the next couple of hours there will be a reasonable amount. I would also guess that while there will be some approval on the progressive side that Rev. Spahr was acquitted, I also suspect that neither progressive nor conservative side will be satisfied because it appears that this decision dodges the issue of breaking ground and brings no additional clarity or precedent to what a “wedding” is.
My initial take: The GA PJC seems to be operating in the same mode it has in other decisions by crafting a central body that the whole commission can sign on to. This one appears a bit more frayed at the edges than the others because there are four minority reports, one of which dissents with regard to certain parts of the main decision.
Now, I’ll get back to work and analyze this decision in more detail on my commute home. More later.