c. 1999 Religion News Service

STAMFORD, Conn. _ A church tribunal has upheld the right of the First Presbyterian Church of Stamford to elect an openly gay elder to its governing board.

In a 4-1 decision, the judges ruled the church governing board could not press a man who admitted to being in a same-sex relationship on whether he was sexually active. Such questioning would “lead down a slippery slope that ends in inquisition,” the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Southern New England Presbytery said.

The Saturday (March 6) ruling cleared the congregation of violating church law by electing Wayne Osborne to its governing board, called a session.

Osborne, 38, admitted to being in a same-sex relationship but had refused to disclose whether it involved homosexual practices.

The commission decided that there was no evidence Osborne engaged in the acts, which would bar him from office.

Its interpretation, if sustained, would have broad implications in the 3.6-million-member Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Gays and lesbians in the denomination, as in most mainline churches, have been agitating for full acceptance for years.

But in 1997, the denomination adopted an amendment to its constitution meant to bar non-celibate homosexuals from ordination or holding church governing positions.

Osborne hailed the court ruling at a news conference in the church sanctuary following services Sunday.

“My prayer is that we all will continue to fight to further the cause of God’s inclusive love,” he said. “I also continue to hope this process will illustrate that sexual orientation should not be used to discriminate and that gays and lesbians continue to be called to God’s service.”

His statement was greeted by vigorous applause by several dozen members of the congregation who stayed after services to hear the news conference. More than 20 members of the church’s governing board along with the church’s pastor appeared at the press conference.

The ruling ordered Osborne’s installation postponed for 30 days, pending a decision of the complainants whether they would appeal.

The complainants were congregation members Mairi Hair and James McCallum. Walter E. Baker and William A. Prey, both of Greenwich, who argued the complainants’ case, said by telephone they were disappointed in the decision. They were studying it to see if there was basis for appeal.

The decision could be appealed to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Northeast Synod of the church and beyond that to the denomination’s highest body, its General Assembly that meets annually.

The 21-page ruling was joined in by four members of the commission that heard the case on Feb. 26 in a borrowed courtroom used by students at Quinnipiac College Law School in Hamden, Conn.

The commission, headed by Samuel Hamilton of Hartford, said Osborne was within his rights not to answer questions about his sexual practices.

For the church to press him to answer, the commission said, would be in conflict with another church standard enacted in 1978 that covers examination of people with homosexual orientations.

It quoted that standard as saying that “it would be a hindrance to God’s grace to make specific inquiry into sexual orientation or practice of candidates … where the person involved has not taken the initiative in declaring his or her sexual orientation.”

The 1997 constitutional amendment requires “a voluntary self-disclosure,” the commission said, and to interpret it otherwise “is to begin down a slippery slope that ends in inquisition.”

A five-page dissenting opinion was written by the Rev. William P. Showalter, a retired minister who lives in Orleans, Mass.

Showalter pointed out that during the nominating process, documents show some church members assumed that because Osborne was in a same-sex relationship he engaged in sexual activity and the church would violate church law by electing him.

“If there was any prior knowledge or assumption of knowledge of Mr. Osborne’s sexual activity as a single person, the Session was remiss in not pursuing further its examination of him,” Showalter wrote.

Osborne’s refusal to answer questions about his sexual activity “should not have been allowed to stand,” Showalter said.

DEA END RENNER