INTRODUCTION

Church Council endorsed two amendments to the Rock Spring Open and Affirming Statement on November 21, 2006; encouraged members of the congregation to participate in discussions of the proposed amendments; and welcomed the Marriage Equality Study Committee’s (MESC) offer to manage the discussions. Subsequently it was agreed to hold Listening and Discussion sessions on January 21, February 11 and 18, and March 11, prior to the vote by the Congregation targeted for March 18. 

The Listening and Discussion sessions on January 21, February 11 and 18 together with a number of emails provided the basis for the MESC to place recommendations before the Board of Social Action on February 20. In turn, the Board placed its recommendations before Council on February 24 and the Council decided to endorse and lay them before the Congregation on March 18. The purpose of this document is to inform the congregation about the proposed amendments and questions that have been received and to present MESC’s assessment of the amendments and responses to the questions.  

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO OUR OPEN AND AFFIRMING STATEMENT

Amendment 1. Council endorsed an addition to the “IN LIGHT OF OUR” section of the Statement, which reads:

• “Prayerful consideration of the UCC 25th General Synod resolution ‘In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All’”.
  
  

Concern was expressed over referencing the General Synod resolution instead of the timeless fundamental beliefs of equality that we share and upon which the resolution is based. The question seemed to be whether it was appropriate to reference a particular historical event in our Open and Affirming Statement or not, and whether doing so compromised the possibility of using our Statement in liturgical settings, such as worship services.

Assessment:  The Marriage Equality Study Committee carefully considered this concern and is recommending that we keep the Council-endorsed language referring to our prayerful consideration of the General Synod resolution for the following reasons.  The impetus for Rock Spring to consider amending our Open and Affirming Statement to reflect a commitment to marriage equality came from the courageous and prophetic action of the 25th General Synod to pass a resolution calling upon UCC churches and settings to prayerfully consider supporting equal marriage rights for all.  This resolution marks a watershed moment in the history of our denomination, and is the reason for embarking on our marriage equality study process, which has culminated in the proposed revision to our Open and Affirming Statement.  Therefore, we feel that referencing the resolution in the “IN LIGHT OF OUR” section of the Open and Affirming Statement is important, because it sets forth the basis for our decision to amend our statement to include an affirmation of marriage equality.  Also, reference to the General Synod resolution reminds us that our actions at Rock Spring are situated within the broader context of the denominational family to which we belong; our actions do not take place in a vacuum, but we are linked the wider body of Christ, and in particular, to our UCC family, who has called us to take another step forward on the journey towards full equality for all people, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons.  Finally, we took note of the fact that unlike our Rock Spring Covenant, the Open and Affirming Statement will not be pasted in our hymnal and intended for use as a liturgical resource.  Rather, like other statements such as our Just Peace statement and our statement on Support for Survivors of Clergy Abuse, this Statement falls into a different category.  While it will be published on our website and made available in church informational materials, it is not primarily intended to be used in liturgical settings. 

During the Listening and Discussion sessions the decision of the MESC to change its position presented at the fourth Forum from “Endorsing” to “Prayerful consideration of” the Resolution was recalled, as this change was a factor in the Committee’s decision to propose Amendment 3 (See below). It became evident that some session participants preferred endorsement while others favored the retention of “Prayerful consideration”. This led to the suggestion to change the Amendment to read “Prayerful consideration of the endorsement of the UCC 25th General Synod resolution “In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All” (proposed addition in bold).

Due to limited support for this change the MESC recommended the retention of the language previously endorsed by Council; the Board of Social Action so recommended to Council. The amendment as previously endorsed by Council therefore will be before the Congregation on March 18.       

Amendment 2. Council endorsed replacing the words “ceremonies of traditional marriage and of committed union” with “marriage ceremonies for all couples regardless of gender.”

The motivation for this amendment is to indicate that at Rock Spring all couples have access to the church rite of holy marriage, and we don not discriminate between same-sex and opposite-sex couples on the basis of gender in our marriage policy. The ONA statement of 2000 refers to “traditional marriage” for heterosexual people and “holy union” for gay people, clearly a discriminatory situation.

Concern was expressed over the proposed language since marriage ceremonies for same gender couples are illegal in Virginia. To alleviate this concern the proposal was to insert “religious” before “marriage”. At the Listening and Discussion sessions and via email further support for inserting “religious” was received, with the proponents arguing that inclusion would inform the State (and all others) that the marriage ceremony at Rock Spring was not a legal equivalent (that we were not performing legally recognized same-sex marriages).

Assessment: There are three reasons for the Committee being reluctant to insert the word “religious” before “marriage ceremonies”.  (a) The Council endorsed amendment to our Open and Affirming Statement is not time bound and would affirm Rock Spring’s commitment to equal marriage rights for all. Our Open and Affirming Statement should be, as far as possible, an eternal document, upholding our unchanging core values even as political and social events evolve and change. It is entirely possible that, some years or decades from now, it would no longer be illegal for same-gender couples to get married, even in Virginia. When that happens, this concern to insert the word “religious” goes away. The MESC believes that a temporary concern should not influence our statement of principle.

(b) The essence of marriage is a covenanted commitment that has its foundation in the faithfulness of God’s inclusive love. The marriage ceremony is the occasion when two people unite in the mutual exchange of covenant promises. A UCC certificate of marriage is issued to all couples married at Rock Spring. In addition to the issuance of the UCC Certificate of Marriage, a circuit court authorized minister may complete and sign the state marriage license for an opposite gender couple that has obtained the license from the clerk or deputy clerk of a circuit court in any county or city in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Same gender couples cannot obtain a marriage license and therefore a state marriage license cannot be signed for them. While they are married in the eyes of Rock Spring Church they are not legally married in the eyes of Virginia and therefore the issue of legality should not arise.   Obviously we do not anticipate engaging in civil disobedience on the matter.

(c) In the unlikely event that a rogue attorney general takes it to his head to pursue the minister officiating the marriage ceremony, the phrase “religious marriage ceremonies” would not afford any protection anyway.   The minister, in this improbable event, would be pursued for what he or she did, not for what the congregation had written years before.  So runs the advice that we have had from a lawyer on the Committee whose firm has provided a pro bono assessment of the risks involved for the officiating ministers.

For these three reasons, the MESC recommended against inserting the word “religious” before “marriage.”

During the Listening and Discussion sessions the participants noted that the UCC Certificate of Marriage uses the term “Holy Marriage” and therefore proposed the insertion of “holy” instead of “religious” into the Council endorsed amendment. The MESC supported this proposal as it is the term used in the UCC marriage certificate and it makes clear that we do not pretend that the marriage of gay people has legal backing. The MESC therefore recommended that the Council endorsed amendment be modified to read “including ceremonies of holy marriage for all couples regardless of gender”. The Board of Social Action endorsed this recommendation and the Council decided to substitute this phrase for its previously endorsed amendment. Therefore, the amendment before the Congregation on March 18 will be to replace the phrase “including ceremonies of traditional marriage and of committed union” with “including ceremonies of holy marriage for all couples regardless of gender”.  

Amendment 3. Our Open and Affirming Statement does not contain a clear and direct statement on Rock Spring’s commitment to full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in public and political arenas.

This omission was called to our attention, and the following addition to the Council endorsed version of the Statement was considered at the Listening and Discussion sessions and via email, to be inserted as the third paragraph under THEREFORE:

“We further promise to witness to Rock Spring’s commitment to full civil rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, including access to the rights, responsibilities and protections of legally recognized marriage, in broader public and political arenas.”

The motivation for this addition amendment is to provide an explicit basis for witnessing activity outside the church.

Assessment: The 25th Synod’s resolution “In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All” does call upon “congregations and individuals of the United Church of Christ to prayerfully consider and support local, state and national legislation to grant equal marriage rights to couples regardless of gender, to work against legislation, including constitutional amendments, which denies civil marriage rights to couples based on gender.”

Initially we assumed references in the OPEN AND AFFIRMING Statement to “Rock Spring’s long-standing advocacy of the principles of peace, justice, and equality” together with “Endorsement” of the 25th Synod’s “Equal Marriage Rights Resolution” would provide adequate justification for witnessing to the broader community for full civil rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. However, at the fourth Forum it became evident that not all were comfortable with “Endorsement” and therefore the MESC recommended to Council that the addition to the IN LIGHT OF section of the Statement indicate instead that we had given “Prayerful consideration” to the resolution.

Upon reflection the MESC realized that the change from “Endorsement” to “Prayerful consideration” did not provide an explicit basis for Rock Spring’s commitment to civil rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity in broader public and political arenas. The multi-year efforts of the Board of Social Action and many other Rock Spring members and friends in support of civil rights for and in opposition to discriminatory measures against LGBT people has been tireless and inspiring, as evidenced by our efforts against the recent constitutional amendment to the Virginia Constitution.  However, the basis for Rock Spring members to engage in such efforts has only been implicit in our current Open and Affirming Statement. The MESC now believes that a more clear and direct statement of our commitment to witness to our principles in the world beyond Rock Spring would give us a firmer basis for congregational efforts to seek equality and justice for all. 

After all, Rock Spring has a long tradition of witnessing to the broader community.  Historical documents note that as far back as 1932, Pastor Paul Hunter “believed that the church should always be responsive to the needs not only of its members, but to the problems of the community and the times.”  The role of Rock Spring in establishing the US Institute of Peace and Rev. George Booth’s sermon labeling the Vietnam war as a “national disaster of the first proportion” are noteworthy. Rock Spring has had many congregational meetings to decide to advocate for specific issues. These include affirmative votes on witnessing for: Public School Integration, 1958; Freedom March, 1963; Poor People’s Campaign, 1968; Towards Freedom of Choice in Abortion, 1971; Peace and the Resolution of Conflict, 1980; the Just Peace resolution of 1994; the Open and Affirming statement of 2000; etc. 

To reflect our congregation's history of putting faith into practice in the broader community, and to reflect the views expressed by many during our long consideration of marriage equality, the Marriage Equality Study Committee recommended adding the above insertion to the Open and Affirming Statement so that we are explicit about our commitment to witness for full civil rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

This initial version of the amendment attracted comment from those who supported it and those who opposed its inclusion in the Listening and Discussion sessions and via email.

The belief was expressed that full equality in marriage regardless of gender of the couple is not only fair and just, but consistent with Christian principles and likely to strengthen, not weaken, the institutions of marriage and family in the United States.  Further, it was hoped that Church Council would endorse adding the amendment to our ONA Statement and that we as a Congregation will commit to witnessing in the broader community and society our support for full civil rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Concerns over the amendment were expressed, including: it is too political; the O&A Statement must remain a statement of religious beliefs, not a political action mandate or mandatory order for political action forced upon the entire congregation; individuals do not need this addition to take action; a corporate promise to enable such action is wrong; “promise to witness” could bind all members to take action; endorsing same-sex marriage favors the opposition;

In seeking to overcome these concerns an amendment to the proposed amendment and two substitute amendments were proposed. The amendment to the proposed amendment would substitute the word “affirm” for “promise to witness to” so that the amendment would read:

“We further affirm Rock Spring’s commitment to full civil rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, including access to the rights, responsibilities and protections of legally recognized marriage, in broader public and political arenas.”

The first substitute amendment read:

“We affirm Rock Spring’s commitment to full civil rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, including the right to enter into legally recognized relationships that entail all of the rights, privileges, and obligations of heterosexual marriage.”

The second substitute amendment read:

We affirm Rock Spring’s commitment to witness in broader public and political arenas, to full civil rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, including the right to enter into legally recognized relationships that carry all of the rights, responsibilities, and protections now accorded only to heterosexual marriages.

After prayerful consideration of all the views expressed and careful study of the reasons for the proposed amendments to MESC’s proposal the MESC decided to modify the initial proposed amendment and recommended to the Board of Social Action the following formulation:

“We affirm Rock Spring’s commitment to witness to full civil rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, including access to the rights, responsibilities and protections of legally recognized marriage, in broader public and political arenas.”

The word “affirm” is used to indicate the commitment of the church as a whole to witness, rather than “promise” that might suggest every individual member would be compelled to witness or otherwise participate in certain activities. The phrase “commitment to witness” is used in our Just Peace statement. The phrase “full civil rights” affirms full equality before the law; no discrimination under any circumstances. The wording “access to the rights … of legally recognized marriage” allows for some flexibility in interpretation. It can be interpreted to support full marriage equality for same-gender couples, but it also leaves room for an interpretation that would enable support for other types of legal recognition that would afford rights equal to marriage, to the extent possible, under a different name. In so doing Rock Spring will have the flexibility to support measures leading to the penultimate goal of rights of civil union while still maintaining the principle of total nondiscrimination, viz. legal marriage for LGBT people. The phrase “in broader public and political arenas” reinforces the notion that witnessing occurs outside of the church environment, and the word “political” is in line with the Just Peace statement which uses the word several times.    

In making its recommendation the Committee recalled the view that in part it was the lack of extensive discussion of witness and advocacy that led at the fourth Forum not to endorse the Synod Resolution but instead give it “Prayerful consideration”.  Although the Committee notes that the Resolution was presented and discussed at the October 2005 congregational sessions, and that witness and advocacy in the broader public and political arenas underpinned several of the Forum presentations, in view of the considerable comment this proposed amendment has generated the Committee offered to organize a mini-forum on March 4 for a full discussion of this amendment and witness and advocacy in the broader public and political arenas.

The Board of Social Action endorsed the amendment and the mini-forum on March 4. The Council approved the amendment and authorized the MESC to conduct a mini-forum relating to Rock Spring’s commitment to witness in broader public and political arenas on March 4.   

QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Several questions were raised about the implications of the Council endorsed amendments to the Rock Spring Open and Affirming Statement, as follows:

Question 1:              How will the current guidelines and rites for performing marriage ceremonies at Rock Spring change? Can you describe the process?   

Response: Rock Spring's pastors will use the same guidelines they have used in the past when determining if a couple can be married in our church. Marriage ceremonies at Rock Spring are consistent with the congregation's stated commitments and those of the UCC and henceforth will be fully in accord with equal marriage rights for all. The pastors draw upon a number of worship resources provided by the UCC or created by the pastor in consultation with the couple, and have access to an inclusive version of the UCC Order for Marriage that provides language for use for any marriage regardless of gender.

Couples will receive a UCC-issued certificate as a written document of the marriage ceremony. Three to five pre-marital counseling sessions will be conducted for each couple as has been done for the last 18 years.

Examination of the UCC-issued certificate during the 2/11 sessions made evident that the certificate must be revised to be consistent with Amendment 2. The Certificate was reviewed during both sessions on 2/18, which led to a proposal to delete reference to the State from the Certificate that would be given to same gender couples but leave it as is for heterosexual couples. Others proposed that the Rock Spring/UCC Certificate of Marriage be gender neutral with no reference to the State, and that the State License be an entirely separate document.    

Question 2:      What is the legal consequence of Rock Spring Clergy performing a ceremony of marriage for a same-gender couple?

Response:              Under current Virginia law, a religious marriage ceremony for a same-gender couple would confer no legal status on the couple and would not entitle the couple to "legal incidents of marriage" under Virginia law. The ceremony would not have legal significance, but that fact does not make the ceremony "illegal." Because current Virginia law does prohibit marriage between persons of the same gender (Virginia Code Section 20-45.2), and similarly makes it a misdemeanor to “knowingly perform a ceremony of marriage without lawful license" or to “officiate in celebrating the rites of marriage without being authorized by law to do so (Virginia Code Section 20-28), Rock Spring clergy could certainly open themselves up to prosecution if they attempted to sign any licenses or other legal documents that purported to create a legal union or to bestow any marital rights on a same-gender couple. (To date, no court in Virginia has ruled on the application of this statute (Section 20-28) to purely religious marriage ceremonies.) 

Based on a legal opinion provided to Rock Spring Clergy on a pro bono basis, courts would likely conclude that Virginia has no interest in the regulation of purely religious marriage ceremonies and that the current prohibitions on same-gender marriage do not reach non-legal, purely religious marriages performed by clergy. As long as Rock Spring Clergy do not purport in any way to perform a “legal” marriage for a same gender couple (an impossibility under current Virginia law), prosecution of clergy for performing religious ceremonies for same gender couples is both unlikely to be instituted and, if instituted, unlikely to succeed. In the unlikely event the Commonwealth of Virginia did pursue criminal prosecution against clergy for performing a purely religious ceremony; the church has insurance that would cover defense costs.  Vigorous support from both conservative and liberal groups that advocate for religious freedom and separation of church and state would likely be forthcoming as well.

Related Question:              At a Listening and Discussion session a question arose regarding the congregation or an individual member of the congregation could be subject to prosecution under Virginia Code Section 20-28 simply by voting to support marriage ceremonies for all couples regardless of gender.

Response:              No. Based on a legal opinion provided to the MESC, to the extent Virginia Code Section 20-28 has any application to purely religious ceremonies, Section 20-28 clearly appears directed only to the individual who actually “performs” or “officiates” at a ceremony of marriage, not to individual members (or to the larger Church body).      

Question 3:              Can an attendee at the Congregational Meeting propose a secret/paper ballot?

Response:              Yes.  Any member at any Congregational Meeting can make a motion to have a vote taken by a paper ballot.  Such a motion would follow the same procedures as any other motion:  if it is seconded and approved by a majority of members voting, the motion would be adopted.  This is the only way to use paper ballots - Council cannot make the decision for the Congregational Meeting.

Question 4:              Can an attendee at the Congregational Meeting propose a further amendment to the main motion?

Response:              Yes.  Members attending the Congregational Meeting can propose amendments to the language initially under consideration. If the motion received a second, there would be discussion and then a vote.  If a majority of those voting approved the alternative language, it would replace the language initially under consideration. 

Question 5:              Can those who will be away on March 18 vote by proxy?

Response:              No.  According to Robert’s Rules of Order, proxy voting must be authorized in the By-Laws. Our Constitution and By-Laws do not address proxy voting.