SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

In 1993, a case concerning the clergy credentials, continuation and appointability of the Rev. Jeanne G. Knepper went to the Judicial Council from the Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference. In its decision No. 702, the Judicial Council emphatically declared that the General Conference or the annual conferences must define both the phrase "self-avowed practicing homosexual" and the word "status."

The Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference heeded the words of the Judicial Council. In 1995, the Board of Ordained Ministry brought forward a definition, which the annual conference adopted as General Conference Petition 231, Define 'Status' as used in the Discipline:

Define "status" in the following manner:

Status refers to the position of standing of a person in society. This position may be legally determined or the result of social attitudes.

This petition became General Conference Petition Number 20274-GJ-Non-Dis-O, listed on page 714 of the 1996 Daily Christian Advocate, Volume 1. The petition went to the Legislative Committee dealing with General and Judicial Administration. Calendar Item 1367 on page 360 of the Daily Christian Advocate, Volume 3 reports that the legislative committee voted non-concurrence with this petition. The petition was defeated by the General Conference on Consent Calendar C04. Contrary to the emphatic advice of the Judicial Council, the General Conference of 1996 did not define the word status.

The General Conference of 1996 added the sentence, Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches to paragraph 65C of the Social Principles. In August of 1998, the Judicial Council ruled that, notwithstanding the placement within the Social Principles, the sentence was intended to be, and is, binding as United Methodist law.

As a clergy member of the Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference, I contend that both the "normal" definition of the word "status," as noted by the Judicial Council in 1993, and the definition of "status" adopted by Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference in 1995 are inclusive of sexual orientation. In the absence of General Conference definition that would establish otherwise, I argue that Paragraph 4 of the Constitution of The United Methodist Church forbids me to consider sexual orientation when I determine who may participate in church programs and that Paragraphs 15.1 and 15.14 require that the General Conference secure the rights and privileges of membership, including the right to ask for and receive ministerial services, regardless of sexual orientation.

ARGUMENT

1. The United Methodist Church is explicitly inclusive of all people.

Paragraph 4 of the Constitution labeled Inclusiveness of the Church, insists:

The United Methodist Church is a part of the church universal, which is one Body in Christ. Therefore all persons, without regard to race, color, national origin, status, or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend its worship services, to participate in its programs, and, when they take the appropriate vows, to be admitted into its membership in any local church in the connection.

This inclusiveness of United Methodism is further developed in Paragraph 117:

We recognize that God made all creation and saw that it was good. As a diverse people of God who bring special gifts and evidences of God's grace to the unity of the Church and to society, we are called to be faithful to the example of Jesus' ministry to all persons.

Inclusiveness means openness, acceptance, and support that enables all persons to participate in the life of the Church, the community, and the world. Thus, inclusiveness denies every semblance of discrimination.

The mark of an inclusive society is one in which all persons are open, welcoming, fully accepting, and supporting of all other persons, enabling them to participate fully in the life of the church, the community, and the world.

2. General Conference has a responsibility to guard against any discrimination that would undermine the inclusiveness of the church.

Although the General Conference has been given the right To define and fix the powers and duties of elders, deacons, supply preachers, local preachers, exhorters, and deaconesses (Paragraph 15.2), it must do so within the limitations of Paragraph 15.1: To define and fix the conditions, privileges and duties of Church membership, which shall in every case be without reference to race or status., and Paragraph 15.14: To secure the rights and privileges of membership in all agencies, programs, and institutions in the United Methodist Church regardless of race of status.

3. The Judicial Council has long dealt with the meaning of the word "status" as it applied paragraphs 15.1 and 15.14 to different situations.

Status appears in Pars. 15.1 and 15.14 of the Constitution of The United Methodist Church, where it is coupled with race (race or status) to indicate those conditions which should not affect the rights and privileges of membership in all agencies, programs, and institutions in The United Methodist Church.

The other constitutional passage which addresses the inclusiveness of The United Methodist church is found in Paragraph 4. That passage says that all people, without regard to race, color, national origin or economic condition, shall be eligible to attend the worship and services, participate in the programs and be admitted into membership in any local United Methodist Church. We must notice that the operative words of this passage are all people, and that the list of conditions which are not to be exceptions to all people is an emphasis that strengthens and does not limit the inclusiveness of all people. If we reason that both passages are making similar claims about inclusiveness, then status must include characteristics of color, national origin and economic condition.

This is not, however, an exhaustive meaning of the word status. In Judicial Council decision 317, status includes sex (gender) and marriage. Decisions 404, and 433 also include the ministerial occupation of one's spouse under the category of status. The concurring opinion to decision 544 claims that homosexuality may be within a protected status.

That marital status, spousal occupation and economic condition fall under the category of status determines that status need not be immutable. Thus, it is not necessary to determine whether or not homosexuality is immutable to determine that it is a status. The fact that the United Methodist Discipline refers to homosexuality in ways that determine legal categories is sufficient to deem that homosexuality is a status.

In 1993, the Judicial Council observed that the normal meaning of status would include sexual orientation:

In regard to the definition of the word "status" in the Constitutional Amendment, the following observations must be made in the light of its legislative history:

1. There is no evidence that the word "status was intended to include the clergy status of a self-avowed practicing homosexual.
2. There is no evidence in the legislative history that the word "status" does not include the clergy status of a self-avowed practicing homosexual.
3. It is obvious that if the normal definition of "status" is used, it would be all-inclusive.
4. The word "status" is not defined either in the legislative process or in the Discipline.

In this ruling the Judicial Council claimed that the legislative history gives no guidance of determining that status does or does not include sexual orientation and that the normal meaning of the word would include sexual orientation. They warned the General Conference, clearly and emphatically, that it must define status. This ruling recognized the sensitive and divisive nature of the issues around sexual orientation and gave the General Conference time to consider the matter and determine whether the will of the church intended something other than the normal meaning of the word status.

4. The General Conference did not create an alternative definition.

In so doing, it ignored both the emphatic advice of the Judicial Council and the opportunity provided by the petition from the Oregon-Idaho Annual Conference.

5. In the meantime, the course of secular law has become increasingly clear that sexual orientation is a status.

In 1992, the citizens of Colorado passed an amendment to the Colorado constitution which forbade the adoption of anti-discrimination legislation that protected people regardless of sexual orientation. In 1992, Judge H. Jeffrey Bayless issued an injunction against the implementation of that amendment until it was reviewed by the state and federal Supreme Courts. In his argument, Judge Bayless defined status as an identifiable class and argued that homosexuals form an identifiable class.

The Supreme Court of the United States overturned Colorado's Amendment Two on May 20, 1996. In the Court's decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy began by recalling that Justice Harlan had observed in 1896 that the Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens, and ended by asserting that Colorado's Amendment Two:

is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests; it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit…Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do….Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

In a later decision, Circuit Court Judge Stephen Gallagher, Jr. required that the Oregon Health Sciences University offer health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of lesbian or gay employees, when he ruled on July 29, 1996 that:

It is beyond debate that invidious and virulent discrimination has been and is directed toward and suffered by the lesbian and gay men communities in this state, and elsewhere. So pernicious and pervasive has this odious activity become that it is incumbent upon the judiciary to scrutinize, carefully and thoroughly, legislation and administrative rules which ostensibly are facially balanced or neutral, and hence, appear to comport with constitutional mandates, but which, in fact and in practical effect, merely disguise the very discriminatory practices constitutional considerations proscribe. Constitutional law may mandate, like it or not, that customs change along with an evolving social order.

6. Sexual orientation develops before birth or very early in life.

Judicial opinion and scientific opinion concur: Sexual orientation is established early and is difficult, if not impossible to change. Lesbians and gay men are a minority population who experience much discrimination solely because of their identity, of their status, as homosexuals.

The American Psychological Association adopted the following position re homosexuality in 1994:

The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals, nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten per cent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.

7. The United Methodist Church understands guidance in the formation, celebration and sustenance of relationships to be part of its ministry.

The church proclaims, in its Social Principles:

Sexuality is God's good gift to all persons. We believe persons are fully human only when that gift is acknowledged and affirmed by themselves, the church, and society. We call all persons to the disciplined, responsible fulfillment of themselves, others, and society in the stewardship of this gift.

Beyond that foundation, the Church directs ministers, To perform the marriage ceremony after due counsel with the parties involved. (Paragraph 331.i, Responsibilities and Duties of a Pastor) The official Book of Worship of The United Methodist Church devotes 24 pages to Services of Christian Marriage. The General Board of Discipleship is mandated to assist congregations and conferences to Promote the making and keeping of covenants as foundations for family living. (Paragraph 1118, Age-level and Family Ministries)

8. This is a question of status, not practice.

Some within the church would argue that a proper distinction can be made between having a sexual orientation and practicing that sexual orientation. I have previously argued before this court that sexual orientation pervades our lives, coloring how we see other people, what we dream, how we present ourselves in the world. People cannot not practice their sexual orientation any more than they can not practice their race or gender or economic status.

The Judicial Council may have recognized the validity of the argument when it stated, in Decision 702, that the normal definition of status would be all-inclusive, that is, would include self avowed, practicing homosexuals.

This argument is, however, unnecessary. The General Conference did not condition its prohibition on the practice of a homosexual sexual orientation, whatever that is, but upon the condition, upon the status, of being homosexual. This it cannot do.

9. The legislation creates a preferred class within the United Methodist Church.

To deny services of the church to people of homosexual sexual orientation while actively making those services available to people of a heterosexual sexual orientation is to create a preferred class, heterosexual people, within the church. Judicial Council Memorandum No. 594 claimed, since Par. 15.14 was added to the Constitution in 1968, the Judicial Council has consistently ruled unconstitutional any legislation which would guarantee to any group a preferred status not extended to others.

10. The Judicial Council must rule.

In 1993, the Judicial Council claimed:

It is not the task of the Judicial Council to legislate the meaning of words passed by the General Conference…it is obvious that the term "status" needs to be defined. …We know that this is a volatile, sensitive subject…Therefore, we would say even more explicitly it is the obligation of the General Conference to define these terms or the obligation of the Annual Conference to define these terms."

The Judicial Council could not have been more emphatic in directing the General Conference or the annual conferences to take up the definition of status. This direction recognized the sensitive and volatile nature of the subject of homosexuality and gave the church time to consider whether it intended constitutional protections to cover the status of sexual orientation. The church had an opportunity to define status in ways that would exclude sexual orientation but did not take that opportunity. The 1996 General Conference not only disregarded the Judicial Council's emphatic direction: it went on to adopt a prohibition based on status.

It is not the role of the Judicial Council to craft special definitions for words, but it is the task of the Judicial Council to apply the words of the Constitution to the life of the church. The Council routinely interprets the meaning of constitutional passages. It must do no less now. If is chooses not to rule whether homosexual sexual orientation constitutes a status under the protection of the Constitution, it allows the General Conference to perpetuate grave injustice even as it ignore explicit directives from the Judicial Council and thereby weakens the balance of power between the legislative and judicial functions of the United Methodist Church.

There have been other times when a majority of the delegates to General Conference adopted a position in opposition to this Constitutional standard that secures rights and privileges regardless of race of status.

In decision 4 IJC, the Interim Judicial Council quoted Paragraph 15.14 and followed it with these words: These are sweeping directions that our church shall be racially inclusive in membership, in structure, and in operation. There are no exceptions.

In Decision 5 IJC, they carried that point further:

The arguments of those who would now have the Interim Judicial Council ignore the express and unequivocal commands of the Constitution in Paragraphs 4 and 15.14, reflect a grave misconception of the nature and function of a constitution. We are urged to consider "the extraordinary times--in which we are not conducting business as usual." We are told that the Constitution should be made to "bend" in recognition of the will of a majority of delegates and "the pulse" of the Uniting Conference. Also it is asserted that the racial structuring in question is "provisional" and therefore only necessary "at this instant."

Were we to approach in such manner our duties in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution we would be grossly derelict. It would not be long before the Constitution of the new church would be a dead letter, subverted and openly evaded by means of such arguments of short-term expediency. As we see it., the members of the two denominations in voting union and adopting the Constitution intended that it should constitute a statement of basic principles to serve the church in its historic mission, not a document for the passing hour with its meaning and application shifting with the passing winds.

I believe that this means that the prohibition on setting different rules for people of different status, in this case, different sexual orientations, is timeless and will endure so long as this Constitution endures.

Sitting in a Birmingham jail cell, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior wrote ringing words to those moderates who cautioned that the time was not right for action or change:

For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with a piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." …We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

Brothers and sisters, we are colleagues in this faith. I am as aware as you that some will threaten to split our church if you rule that the Constitution prohibits making distinctions between people that are based on a homosexual sexual orientation. We have long listened to the words of Micah, telling us that God requires justice, kindness, and humility before God. I believe these words could not be more pertinent than now.