INTRODUCTION Good afternoon, madam Moderator. My name is Deana Reed, a Teaching Elder in the Presbytery of Redwoods.

Committee Members, Thank you for your work at this General Assembly and your faithful commitment to the PCUSA. We represent overtures sent to this Assembly by fourteen presbyteries that seek your prayerful discernment and action. Our presbyteries are all located in states where same-gender marriage is legal or is expected to be legal soon. We have chosen to join efforts around the 6 overtures before you - each with the same fundamental request to provide the church an Authoritative Interpretation for the provisions on marriage in W-4.9000. An Authoritative Interpretation that would allow Teaching Elders to officiate at marriages of same-gender couples in states where same-gender marriage is legal. This afternoon we will share with you stories of the pastoral challenges and human toll that the present interpretation of our constitution causes pastors, churches and committed, faithful couples in a growing number of states and the District of Columbia. Since the 219th General Assembly it has become increasingly clear that there is a need for clear interpretation in regards to W-4.9000. Up to this point we have worked out our differences through actions of discipline and lengthy court cases.

But even as Permanent Judicial Commissions have decided cases regarding teaching elders performing marriages of same gender couples, many members of the PJC that decided the most recent GAPJC rulings have repeatedly asked for clearer interpretation of our constitution. You have the opportunity to give such clarity. We recognize and respect the reality that faithful Presbyterians stand on both sides of this debate. And we know that the work of thoughtful dialogue among Presbyterians is not complete, and needs to continue as the 219th General Assembly urged. Our concern is the current and ongoing harm to the church that occurs when faithful teaching elders are unable to fulfill their vows of ministry and pastoral care when couples in their congregations and communities who happen to be of the same gender come to them with the simple, yet profound, request: Will you marry us?

THEY WILL COME AND ASK My name is Paul Gilmore. Im a Teaching Elder in the Presbytery of Southern New England. I know that they will come and ask, and when they do I will want to answer Yes. The congregation will want to celebrate their marriage like we do every other - as a gift of God, blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ, and sustained by the Holy Spirit. We would wonder at the mystery of it all the love of this samegender couple a small but significant reflection of the greater covenant of Gods love for each of us and of the love we share within the body of Christ.

I wish I didnt have to wrestle so with the question. I wish that my answer could be simple and joyous and wonderful and faith-filled, but right now it cannot be. When they come and ask, I will explain the situation how even though it is legal for them to marry within the state of Connecticut I cannot officiate at the marriage and we cannot do the wedding in our sanctuary without facing possible disciplinary action. I would like to encourage them to proceed anyway, but I suspect that they will withdraw their request, the stated reason their concern for me and the church and not wanting to open us to all the potential trouble, but underneath the words their heartache and hurt will be palpable, and I wonder if they will be able to remain as members. Before making the decision, I will go to the session and explain to them why in this matter my pastoral discretion is no longer valid and why they, as a session, are not free to make knowing, prayerful decisions about whom they will joyfully welcome into the church for marriage. That decision comes from elsewhere, from afar, from those who do not know the hearts and minds and faith of the couple seeking to be married. If I answer yes, I will go to the Mission Committee and the Evangelism Committee and explain to them how if we proceed with this marriage that our time, energy, and financial resources will probably be diverted away from our central mission as a church. We will have less money for those who are hungry and in need, and for our witness to the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the community and world; because of the significant legal bills we may incur defending me and the session in the courts of the church.

If I answer no, I will go to the people who are inquiring about membership in our church, many of whom have already given up on the institutional church but who are willing to give it one more try because they have found us, or better yet, because God has led them to us. I will explain to them why we denied one particular couple the pastoral care, the premarital counseling, and the covenant of marriage service within our church that we offer to all other members. I will explain why this particular couples vows cannot be offered in the safe and sacred space where their faith has been nurtured, surrounded by the members of the faith community who love and care for them. I fear the potential members will walk away. And I will go the youth group, explain the situation, and absorb their angry words and their righteous indignation. They are not unlike the vast majority of their peers, churched and unchurched, who when it comes to same-gender marriages believe that the church is judgmental and hypocritical, archaic and irrelevant, not to mention flat out wrong. It is a source of pride for them amongst their friends that they are part of a local congregation that does not discriminate when it comes to the breadth [and depth] of Gods love. I will stare at their incredulous faces, their anger masking their wounds, and hope and pray that they will not make the decision that they can no longer be part of any church. I know that they will come, and ask, and when they do I will want to answer Yes. When the question comes, I hope and pray that I will be able to celebrate the covenant of Gods love with the couple and with the church without fear of reprisal. What a simple, and joyous, and wonderful, and faith-filled day that will be.

AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION NEEDED TO CLARIFY My name is Judy Whitford. Im a Ruling Elder from the Presbytery of East Iowa. Our constitution gives each General Assembly the fundamental power to advise and direct the whole Presbyterian Church by issuing Authoritative Interpretations. In 1991, when marriage equality under the law was not a reality anywhere in the U.S., the GA was asked if churches could be used for blessing ceremonies involving same-gender couples. The GA issued an Authoritative Interpretation stating that services of blessing were permissible, but such ceremonies could not be represented as marriages. In the Benton decision in 2000 and in the case involving Janie Spahr in 2008, the PJC followed that same reasoning. These cases were NOT legal civil marriages, but were called marriages in the ceremonies. The GA in 1991 and the PJC in 2000 and 2008 were stating facts a marriage of same-gender couples could not meet the description of marriage in the Directory for Worship, because civil marriage had not been extended to same-gender couples in those localities, and Christian marriage, as the Spahr case noted, presumes FIRST that the relationship in question is a civil marriage. Things are different now as a growing number of states and the District of Columbia have extended marriage to same-gender couples. The Department of Justice, two Federal appeals courts and a number of lower courts have held that the law denying federal marriage rights to legally married same-gender couples is unconstitutional. If pending cases follow the current trend, civil marriage equality will soon be in place in states where almost 40 percent of Americans live.

Now that the facts have changed, our churches find themselves is the midst of ongoing discussions of how pastoral care should be adapted to meet member needs in this new cultural context. This Authoritative Interpretation does not seek to redefine marriage; rather, it seeks to clarify historic statements of the church that were accurate for their time but no longer address our current situation. We can no longer deny what is happening in the civil realm or the movement of the Holy Spirit in the lives of our same-gender congregants and their communities of faith. In 2008, the GAPJC found that the Directory for Worship did not give a clear prohibition to find Janie Spahr guilty of the offense of performing a samegender marriage. It created their own interpretation as the prescriptive rule for future cases. Soon afterwards, they ruled that Jean Southard could not be convicted for conducing a legal marriage for two women in Massachusetts, because it was done before the PJC had ruled that would constitute an offense. To be clear, the GAPJC confirmed that they created the rule that officiating at a legal same-gender marriage is an offense. Earlier this year, in a second Spahr case, the PJC had an opportunity to clarify its earlier ruling, but declined to do so by a divided vote. Six of the fifteen members present entered dissenting opinions. Four others joined the majority but felt they needed to say more about the problems the church faces with current situations. Even the overtures before you now opposing marriage equality recognize the ambiguity in the Directory for Worship, a confusion that we all agree needs to be clarified. If a majority of the 16 members of the GAPJC can create an offense with an authoritative interpretation, a majority of the 500 and some members of the GA can change that by authoritative interpretation. The presbyteries we represent are asking the General Assembly to agree with the dissenting PJC members, who wrote that it is a mistake to base a judicial decision on the flawed assumption

that the description of marriage in the Directory for Worship provides a sufficient basis to hold that marriage must be exclusively between a man and a woman. We encourage you to read this dissent to see their exact words and the rest of their reasoning. Our overtures do not propose what the Directory for Worship should say about marriage. What it does say should not form the basis of disciplinary action against ministers seeking to follow their calling. Discerning of the will of God and the example of Jesus is essential. It is a serious matter when charges are filed against a minister or a session, disrupting ministry and using a huge amount of the resources of the church. The church does need to continue to discern together on the matter of marriage, but using the Directory for Worship as a weapon does not further the cause of Christ.

PASTOR WHO DECLINED TO MARRY My name is Earl Arnold. Im a retired stated clerk, a member of the Presbytery of Cayuga-Syracuse. This is a true story of how the current interpretation of the Directory for Worship's statements about marriage is harming our churches. Near the edge of a city in Massachusetts, a small congregation struggles to maintain its ministry in faithfulness to its calling. Though its members tend to be theologically conservative, the church is committed to social justice and engaged in the life of its neighborhood. It operates a center for homeless people in the church basement, and continues to rethink what it means for them to be the church of Jesus Christ.

Two female members of the church approached the pastor a couple years ago, inquiring about getting married in the church. One was an elder on the session, and the other helped keep the church's financial records. The pastor met with them, and together they struggled to discern what would be the best course to follow. Both the pastor and the couple knew that to have the wedding in the church would violate the recent rulings of the Presbyterian Church's Permanent Judicial Commission and would face both the pastor and the church with the prospect of judicial action. They were well aware of the huge expense involved in a judicial action, both for the defense and for presbytery to prosecute the case. Having to decide whether or not to honor the couple's request was a crisis for the pastor. He felt torn between reneging on his vow to care for the people in that congregation and his vow to be governed by our church's polity and abide by its discipline, as interpreted by the courts of the church. The couple didn't want to put the pastor on the spot or to endanger the congregation and its mission, so after much conversation and prayer, the pastor declined to officiate at the proposed marriage. The couple made arrangements to get married in a church of another denomination, feeling that the Presbyterian Church is not in touch with their situation. Shortly thereafter, they took their membership to another church, leaving this congregation struggling to maintain is ministry with two fewer leaders.

THE DIRECTORY FOR WORSHIP IS DESCRIPTIVE

(Earl Arnold)

The Presbyteries we represent are asking this assembly to recognize that previous Authoritative Interpretation no longer reflect reality, and therefore, to issue a new Authoritative Interpretation that does. The proposed AIs clarify that the description of marriage contained in the Directory for Worship should be considered descriptive, not prescriptivethat is, when written, it described the then-existing state of marriage but was not intended to address same-gender relationships at all. The preface to the Book of Order explains that in it, the words SHALL and IS TO BE/ARE TO BE signify practice that is mandated, and lists other wording signifying recommended, commended, and permissible practices. The section on Christian marriage does not use the mandatory shall language to apply to a man and a woman. To interpret the wording of the Directory for Worship as descriptive rather than precscriptive would not change the Book of Order, but simply apply to it the principle given in the Book of Order itself. It was NEVER the intent of those who drafted this description decades ago to address same-gender couples or their relationships. Indeed, when asked, since 1991, to amend this description to make it clear that ceremonies celebrating loving, committed relationships of gay and lesbian couples should be specifically banned, the church refused to do so. We believe that by being honest about what this description intended when it was written, the conversation about marriage can continue, but pastors and sessions will no longer have to bar their doors and their lock away their blessings when approached by certain children of the church at one of the most momentous and life-changing events of their lives. No one will be forced to do anything, and no leader will face expensive and unjust prosecution and potential censure for complying with their calling to journey with those charged to their care.

PASTORAL CARE Im Betty Iwan, a Ruling Elder from the Presbytery of Genesee Valley.

I want to introduce to you a gay couple who are members of my church. Van and Ralph have been Presbyterians all their lives and members of Third Presbyterian Church, Rochester, NY for 30 years. They were baptized in the church and ordained as elders and deacons by the church. They have served on committees such as Congregational Life and Membership and have sung in the choir. They were cared for by the pastors and members when their parents died and they were embraced when they came out to the congregation. A year and a half ago, Van required knee replacement surgery. His recovery was going well until a serious infection developed. Van had to stay off the leg for 8 months. Ralph used his vacation time from Xerox to be with Van. Church members visited Van, brought food, worked in his garden and played cards with him. Our pastors visited him almost daily. Our congregation has tried to give this devoted couple the same care and love it has offered to all its members. Now that New York State grants marriage licenses to same gender couples, Van and Ralph would like to be wed in a service of Christian marriage at our church. They would like the blessings of our church and the legal benefits offered by New York State that other married couples take for granted. Van and Ralph have been loving partners, living together, owning property, vacationing and worshiping together for 32 years We feel sad that our church and its pastors are not permitted to marry and bless Van and Ralph in the same way afforded opposite gender couples?

Praise God that several states and faith denominations now recognize that love and commitment between same gender couples should be acknowledged and blessed in the same way as they are between opposite gender couples! According to The Book of Order, The worship of God in the Christian Community is the foundation and context for the ministry of pastoral care as well as for the ministry of nurture in the faith. So in that context of pastoral care and nurturing their faith and out of sheer joy and love for Van and Ralph, it is only right that our pastors and our church bless them in a worship service of Christian marriage. Committee members, I pray that the Holy Spirit will move in you this week to offer Van and Ralph and other same gender couples in our churches the blessings of a Christian marriage in our Presbyterian churches by our Presbyterian pastors starting right after this General Assembly.

SESSION CONTROL OF CHURCH BUILDING USE My name is John Harris. Im a Teaching Elder in New York City Presbytery. It is not just the pastoral mission of the congregations that is being harmed by our currently enforced interpretation of the section of our Constitution on marriage; it also impacts our stewardship in the use of church property, our relationships with mission partners, and the financial viability of our churches.

The question of whether or not a session in the District of Columbia, or a state which has marital equality, such as New York, where I serve and moderate three sessions, may permit the use of church property for same-gender marriages might be broader than you think. The question is not only one of whether or not a session may permit a Teaching or Ruling Elder providing Pastoral services to officiate at marriage ceremonies of two people of the same gender who have legally obtained a marriage license, or whether two members of same gender who have legally obtained a marriage license may use church property for their marriage, but one of how sessions may allow others to use their property. Some Churches in New York City Presbytery are a joint witness (G-5.05) involving denominations that explicitly permit same-gender weddings. Shall sessions be forced to restrict how historic partners may liturgically use property they have shared, perhaps for decades? Many sessions in New York City Presbytery lease, rent, or otherwise license other non-Presbyterian worshiping communities to use their property, from sanctuaries to fellowship halls. Receipts from these arrangements are often essential for funding mission and program. Shall sessions be forced to insert restrictive language into any written agreement that would limit the liturgical practice of others?

Would a session, in either of the above cases, which knowingly allows its property to be used for a same-gender weddings, even if its pastoral staff and/or members are not involved, be found guilty of ceasing to use its property in accordance with the constitution (G-4.0204)? The Benton case in 2000 at least raises that possibility, that is, unless, an Authoritative Interpretation makes explicit that sessions may permit the use of church property for such services.

THE BIBLICAL WITNESS Madam Moderator- my name is Sharon Wright-Ruling Elder from the Presbytery of Boston. In addition to pastoral concerns and polity issues, there are historical and Biblical considerations that support our request for this Authoritative Interpretation.

What does Scripture tell us about marriage? The Book of Genesis illustrates that our forbearers reinterpreted the meaning and practice of marriage or else we would be marrying our half-siblings as Abraham did Sara (Genesis 20:12); or cousins, as Isaac married Rebekah (Genesis 24: 24,15); or multiple sisters as Jacob married both Rachael and Leah (Genesis 29:10). In addition, Abraham took Hagar, his Egyptian slave girl, (Genesis 16:4) as a second wife because Sarah could bear no children; and the virtuous Lot, saved from destruction at Sodom, but losing his wife, fathered children with both of his daughters (Genesis 19: 36-37). Sexual exploitation of slaves and ones own childreneven if it is Biblical is not the model of marriage we wish to emulate today.

Scripture reveals no consistent Biblical standard of marriage. The concept and practice of Judeo-Christian marriage has continued to be redefined over thousands of years in response to cultures need to allow or disallow certain practices at different points in time. Many of the original rules governing marriage were meant to ensure that outsiders, or others, did not infiltrate and subvert the faith of the people of Israel. Exodus (34:16), Deuteronomy (7:3 4) and Ezra (Ch. 9 and 10) warned against and forbade outside marriage. Even today, many Jewish rabbis will refuse to perform a marriage service between a Jew and a non-Jew. But in the Presbyterian church, we see this insider / outsider distinction as outmoded, and marriages between Christians and people of other faiths or no formal religious commitment are conducted in our churches routinely. Many ancient marriage practices that helped ensure cultural survival are now forbidden such as marrying close relatives as well as having multiple wives. Today we now deem these practices as abusive and unjust to those of lesser power and status. The Scriptures are silent on same-gender marriages. To argue that this absence or silence means an automatic prohibition against it is like saying that since the Bible is silent about democracy, trial by jury, and freedom of speech that we are in error as 21st century Christians to adhere to those new rules.

People of Faith have interpreted the institution of marriage and changed the prevailing customs as they discerned God speaking to their time through the Holy Spirit. They did not waiver from the rock-solid beliefs: that God wanted people to be together rather than alone (Genesis 2:18); that God wanted people to live in community where they could mutually care for each other, and that God wanted us to care for our children regardless of the structure of the family. In Scripture we see God blessing and bringing outsiders into the tribes of Israel. Even though Moses, who delivered the law that forbade marrying outsiders, had married a foreigner (Exodus 2:16-22), God blessed him and appointed him to lead his people to freedom. And then there is Ruth, the outsider who married inside (Ruth 4:10) and became the great-grandmother of David, from whom Jesus descended. Both of these marriages as well as Davids deviated from the prevailing norm, but God worked through them to bring about outcomes that no one could have predicted. God consistently refuses to live within the narrowly defined box of human customs.

SECOND SECTION Madam Moderator, my name is Jeananne Stine, Ruling Elder, from Baltimore Presbytery. In the New Testament, we see further evidence of Gods disapproval of the mechanical enforcement of rules throughout the Ministry of Jesus (Matthew 15:1-9). Jesus disobeyed the custom-bound religious leaders who conflated their rules with Gods rules. When overly strict scriptural interpretation resulted in rules that were not in the best interests of people and led to physical and spiritual deprivation, Jesus forcefully condemned it (Mark 2:23-28). While bloodlines and property inheritance dominated the concerns of ancient people, they are not our primary concerns. Today Presbyterian same-gender couples, with the support of their congregations, seek to include their marriages as an integral part of their shared Christian life together. In our Presbyteries and congregations we do not see these couples as the other. As we read Scripture, it tells us that God not only allows this, but wishes us to do justice, and to act with kindness and compassion. (Micah 6: 8). Some in the church continue to see these couples as the other and claim that same-gender marriages are not Biblically supported. Paul addressed a similar situation in Galatians: 3:28 when people interpreted their new freedom in Christ in too limited a way. May we be doing that now with same-gender couples? We would do well to remember that God commanded the people of Israel to place the mercy seat on top of the law when they built the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:21) to remind them that God sits in that seat and thus mercy trumps the law.

Our fellow heirs to this scriptural inheritance as represented in both Reformed and Conservative Judaism have embraced same-gender marriage as in keeping within their tradition. It seems odd to insist upon a less generous reading of the Hebrew Scriptures and the purity laws of Leviticus than the current Jewish community upholds. Reinterpreting marriage has been at the heart of Protestantism from the very beginning. Luther said that priests could marry a group previously forbidden to marry was thus authorized. Calvin had a different interpretation of marriage from the Catholic church of his day. And, of course, the Church of England was born from a reinterpretation of the rules on divorce and remarriage. It was not until mid-way through the last century that scriptural interpretations prohibiting mixed-race marriages, were abandoned. The Presbyterian Church filed an influential friend of the court brief in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that struck down those laws. Then as now, we Presbyterians must allow pastors freedom of conscience to interpret and act the way they are called and to lovingly bring people into Christian community (BOO F-3.0102). We must not bind the conscience nor continue the pain of a pastor who believes that marrying a same-gender couple is not only Gods will but an act of justice benefitting the community and preserving its Christian values. To do otherwise leads these ministers to violate other ordination vows, other parts of the Constitution (BOO F-1.0404), and the law of the Spirit which has freed us for righteousness (Romans 6:18).

Likewise, we must not bind the conscience of those pastors who interpret scripture differently. An Authoritative Interpretation also allows pastors and sessions the freedom to refuse to marry any couple whom they feel do not meet the criteria for Christian Marriage. To this end, we humbly ask for an Authoritative Interpretation that permits all pastors and sessions to maintain their traditional discretion.

CONCLUSION

Im Arthur Fullerton, a Ruling Elder and the Treasurer of Albany Presbytery.

Marriage today is utterly different from a hundred years ago when women couldnt vote, and in many cases were not allowed to own property, sign contracts, or be active in the world on an equal footing with men. Marriage then was not a union of equals. The institution has changed, while the name has remained the same.

Each generation of Gods people envisions the institution anew, and makes it work for their time. As good faith belief leads us to new understandings at different speeds and in different ways, an AI can provide pastoral freedom. This freedom upholds the traditional values of faithfulness, honesty, forgiveness, and love while recognizing that, for some at least, the gender of the couple is not the main point. It equally provides freedom for those who see things differently and choose not to perform or participate in same gender marriages. An AI allowing pastoral discretion honors both understandings and may become common ground on which we may all stand in peace.

Sessions around the country have engaged in a season of Bible study, in a season of prayer. Many have consulted diverse theological sources and held extensive small group dialogues. Hard words have been spoken gently, tears shed, and hugs given. Sessions have listened to the wisdom of their members as they have prayerfully sought God's direction.

Today we seek an Authoritative Interpretation which honors that discernment process and blesses pastoral and session discretion. All who appear before you today are part of the body of Christ, differently gifted, differently convicted on the issue of same gender marriage. With an AI allowing same gender marriage in states where it is legal, the only question is can we trust one another enough to allow pastors and congregations to exercise their discretion guided by that gracing Spirit? In the end, our cause is Christ and Christ provides no specific instruction on the question of same gender marriage, save that Christ commands us to love, eats with those who are rejected, and places himself with those on the margins. Following that Christ, we respectfully seek an interpretation of our constitution that is willing to see and celebrate love, commitment, and covenant. An interpretation that honors the role pastors and congregations can play in nurturing those cornerstones of a family built on faith. We ask the Committee to recommend an Authoritative Interpretation recognizing the historical discretion granted sessions and ministers, and to extend that discretion to same gender marriage in those jurisdictions where they are, or may become legal.