 |
| Rev Dr Martin (Chunky) Young |
REVEREND PROFESSOR JOHANNES WOLMARANS FIRST RESPONDENT
and
REVEREND DOCTOR MARTIN YOUNG SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing: 10th and 23 November 2015
Nature of proceedings: Exception in terms of Para 18.97 of the Manual of Faith and Order
Court: R D Twaddle (Convenor)
Rev Armando Sontange
Rev Melanie Cook
Mrs Sheila Hunt
Mr Nathi Ndlovu
Mr Nick Caldwell
Appearance:
For Presbytery: Mr Hylton Cochrane
For Respondents: Adv W van der Linde SC
Adv M Kriegler SC
Instructed by Mr H Friedrich
1. Rev Dr Martin (Chunky) Young and Rev Prof Johannes (Hansie) Wolmarans have been charged by the Presbytery of eGoli ("Presbytery") with misconduct, arising from their respectively conducting (solemnizing} and preaching at and blessing same-sex civil unions.
2. The charges had their genesis in a letter dated 12 December 2014 addressed to the Presbytery of eGoli by Rev Brent Russell on behalf of the Protea Valley Church in the Western Cape.
3. For purposes of the charges brought against the Respondents by Presbytery, the following extract from Protea Valley's letter is relevant:
"This situation is of grave concern to us and should be for the UPCSA for the
following reasons:
1. The General Assembly stated quite clearly in 2008 that "In short, then, no ministers of the UPCSA may perform civil unions at present (whether heterosexual or homosexual) or apply for a license to do so until such time as the General Assembly decides that the UPCSA should opt in". Despite this ruling, Rell Wolmarans proceeded to apply for, receille and use his license showing disregard for the rulings of General Assembly
2. ......
3 .......
4. Rev Chunky Young is party to this duplicity as he and Rell Wolmarans work together in performing civil unions leading us to believe that this is more than one rogue minister. ReI! Young's involvement should be inllestigated especially in light of two occasions where he said from the pulpit that he will marry who he wants irrespective of their sexual orientation. "
4. Presbytery appointed a committee to investigate the allegations by Protea Valley. Following the report of that committee, Presbytery referred the accusations against Dr Young and Prof Wolmarans to this court in terms of Paragraph 18.61 of the Manual of Faith and Order (tithe Manual") and appointed Mr Cochrane as its representative.
5. A notification in terms of Paragraph 18.62 of the Manual was sent to Rev Young and Prof Wolmarans on 30 June 2015. In this notification, the charges of misconduct against Dr Young and Prof Wolmarans were formulated as follows:
7.1. the act(s) 0/ misconduct that have been alleged against Rev Pro/ Wolmarans are that he materially breaching the covenantal relationship that a Minister has with the Church by conducting same -sex civil unions;
7.2. the act(s) 0/ misconduct that have been alleged ogainst Rev Dr Young are
that he materially breached the covenantal relationship that a Minister has
with the Church by:
7.2.1. preaching at and blessing certain 0/ the same-sex civil unions conducted by Rev Pro / Wolmarans; and
7.2.2. encouraging Rev Prof Walmarans to conduct same-sex civil unions.
7.3. The basis 0/ the charges against you are the /following:
7.3.1 The following resolution passed by the 2006 General Assembly, namely:
To confirm the definition of Christian Marriage set out by the Execut Commission in July 2005:
The Executive Commission affirms:
1.1.. Christian marriage is defined within the UPCSA as an ordained covenant that exists between one man and one woman under God for life, and holds this definition to be consistent with the authoritative rule of Scripture as well as the one holy Catholic and apostolic church.
1.2.. The Executive Commission instructs all Marriage Officers affiliated with the UPCSA to remain faithful to the Church's definition of marriage and to exercise pastoral compassion.
7.3.2 The premise that in terms of the covenantal relationship that a Minister has with the Church, he/she promises inter alia to accept the authority of the Church and to encourage other members to do the same.
6. In response to the notification in terms of Paragraph 18.62 of the Manual, the Respondents raised an exception in terms of Paragraph 18.97, on the ground that it (the notification in terms of paragraph 18.62) discloses no misconduct.
7. The Respondents' written response to the notification in terms of Paragraph 18.62 of the Manual states that: " ... some facts are required to be accepted. Those appear from the body of this document, but they should not be controversial." From a full reading of the Respondents' written response and the report of Presbytery's committee, it appears that it is common cause that Prof Wolmarans has conducted civil unions between same-sex couples and that Dr Young has preached at and blessed same-sex civil unions. During argument it was disclosed by Mr van der Linde that there were occasions when Prof Wolmarans, at Dr Young's request, simply solemnized (signed the register), whilst Dr Young conducted the service at which same-sex civil unions were conducted.
8. Accordingly, at least for purposes of this exception, the facts upon which the charges against Dr Young and Prof Wolmarans are based are not in dispute. In these proceedings, therefore, it is this court's task to determine whether the conduct complained of, as set out in the Paragraph 18.62 notification, might constitute misconduct that materially breaches the covenantal relationship between the UPCSA and the Respondents.
9. According to the Respondents' written response, the exception is based upon the following points:
9.1. That Prof Wolmarans did not act in his capacity as a minister of the UPCSA when conducting same-sex civil unions, but as a minister of the New Reformation Church ("NRC"), through which Prof Wolmarans had obtained his license to conduct civil unions;
9.2. That there are no decisions or resolutions of the General Assembly of the UPCSA that forbid ministers to conduct, preach at or bless same-sex civil unions;
9.3. That, on the contrary, General Assembly's decisions:
9.3.1. Condemn discrimination based on sexual orientation as sinful;and
9.3.2. Exhort ministers of the UPCSA to help same-sex couples, in the same way that as they would heterosexual couples, to submit their relationships to God and that the conduct by Prof Wolmarans and Dr Young that is complained of following the letter and the spirit of General Assembly's position.
10. Argument was raised in the Respondent's written response as well as at the hearing of this matter to the effect that, If there were any rule of the Church prohibiting ministers from solemnizing or otherwise acting in an official capacity at same-sex civil union, such prohibition would offend the constitution of South Africa. It was not indicated what this Court should do with this contention. Indeed, paragraph 77 of the Respondents' written response states that: ". .• this question may not be necessary or appropriate for this court to determine .... " We agree with this statement: this Court does not have the jurisdiction to determine whether a rule that has been determined by the General Assembly is a lawful rule. That is the province of the Court of General Assembly and/or the superior courts of South Africa.
11. I will now deal with the point that, when conducting civil unions, Prof Wolmarans was not acting in his capacity as a minister of the UPCSA, but as a minister of the NRC.
12. An analogy was drawn during argument based on the fact that Prof Wolmarans is not only a minister of the UPCSA (and, at least according to official record, a minister of the NRC), but that he is also an academic and professor at the University of Johannesburg. The argument was that, when Prof Wolmarans acts in his capacity as a professor at the University of Johannesburg he is NOT acting as a minister of the UPCSA; similarly, it was argued, when Prof Wolmarans signs a civil union register and stamps it with the NRC stamp, he acts as a minister of the NRC and not as a minister of the UPCSA.
13. There is clear distinction between the role and function of an academic and the role and function of a minister. An academic teaches students and probes his/her subject, testing accepted positions, exploring hypotheses and testing boundaries. This is as true of scientific and other academics as it is of theological academics; if that were not so, the church would still condemn anyone who said that the earth was not flat or that the sun did not revolve around the earth.
14. The role and function of ministers in all denominations are similar. Different denominations may have different structures and procedures, but in all denominations the role of a minister is to preach the Word to members of the congregation in which he/she ministers, to administer sacraments and to be a pastor to the members of his/her congregation.
15. So, for example, it is feasible that something that an academic might say or do in his/her capacity as an academic of a particular educational institution may be completely divorced from his/her role as a minister of a particular denomination and congregation.
16. However, when a minister acts as a minister in a congregation of the UPCSA, this court cannot accept that it can be said that the act performed by that minister is not performed by him/her in his/her capacity as a minister of the UPCSA, but as a minister of another denomination, in this case the NRC, simply because the license issued by the Department of Home Affairs was issued to a minister of the other denomination.
17. There is no suggestion in the Respondents' written response or In the verbal argument that Prof Wolmarans has an active, pastoral role in any congregation of the NRC. Indeed, from independent research undertaken by members of this Court, it does not seem that the NRC is an active, pastoral denomination.
18. It was disclosed in in argument that at least 5 of the civil unions in question were conducted at St Columba's and involved members of St Columba's.
19. It is accepted that in the eyes of the state (the department of Home affairs), the civil unions conducted by Prof Wolmarans' were conducted by him in his capacity as a minister of the NRC, simply because his license was issued to a minister of the NRC and the NRC stamp appears on the certificate.
20. If Prof Wolmarans has conducted civil unions at venues other than St Columba's and where the parties to the civil union have no connection with St Columba's, this Court is prepared to go so far as to accept that Prof Wolmarans did not conduct those particular civil unions in his capacity as a minister of the UPCSA, but in his capacity as an independent marriage officer, under his NRC license. However, when Prof Wolmarans conducts civil unions (or does anything else, for that matter) in St Columba's sanctuary and members of St Columba's are involved, then, in the eyes of the UPC5A, in the eyes of the members of 5t Columba's and in the eyes of the world at large, he can only act in his capacity as a minister of St Columba's and therefore as a minister of the UPCSA.
21. I turn now to the question whether the UPCSA prohibits its members from conducting, preaching at or blessing same-sex civil unions.
22. During argument, the court enquired from Mr van der Linde whether the question was not simply whether such a prohibition existed. Mr van der Linde averred that the issue was much more complex. It is accepted that this is true in the broader context of the charges against the Respondents. f4owever, for purposes of the exception that is before the Court, it is this simple - if the UPCSA prohibits ministers from conducting, preaching at or blessing same-sex civil unions, then to do so may constitute misconduct and the notification in terms of Paragraph 18.62 of the Manual will disclose an offence - whether the Respondents are guilty of the offence would be determined during the trial on the merits of the charges.
23..The 2006 General Assembly passed the following resolution:
1. To commit the UPCSA to continued engagement, study and prayer over this contentious issue (homosexuality), acknowledging our diversity of opinion, but relying on the promised guidance of God1s spirit.
2. To reaffirm that baptism, accompanied by faithl is the sole criterion for membership of the Church.
3. To call its members prayerfUlly to consider whether they have failed to show christian love towards any homosexual persons in the past and repent thereof
4. To condemn all forms of discrimination and abuse on the basis of sexual orientation as such, as sinful.
5. To condemn all forms of sexual promiscuity.
6. To exercise a prophetic, healing and caring ministry when dealing with questionable social behaviour.
7. To urge all its members to deepen their understanding of the issue f homosexuality in dialogue with homosexual Christians, through the study of Scripture and with the help of insights from medical science and psychology.
8. To confirm the definition of Christian marriage set out by the Executive Commission July 2005 where the Executive Commission affirmed that:
8.1. Christian marriage is defined within the UPCSA as an ordained covenant that exists between one man and one woman under God for life and holds this definition to'"'be consistent with the authoritative rule of scripture as well as t he tradition of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
8.2. The Executive Commission instructs all Marriage Officers affiliated with the UPCSA to remain faithful to the Church's definition of marriage and to exercise pastoral compassion and sensitivity in their dealings with all who approach the Church for assistance with marriage.
8.3 The Executive Commission exhorts all members of the church to uphold the sanctity of Christian marriage and to acknowledge its role as the proper context for the expression of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman.
9. To direct that Presbyteries and congregations, dealing with question of sexuality in relation to office bearers of the Church, should do so in humble prayer for God's guidance In the light of the above statement.
24. The resolution of the 2006 General Assembly did not deal with the Civil Unions Bill, for the simple reason that it did not exist at the time preparations were being made for the 2006 General Assembly (the Civil Unions Bill was introduced in 2006, approved by Cabinet on 24 August 2006 and signed by the Acting State President on 29 November 2006, when it became the Civil Unions Act [no longer a BiIII).
25. The first time that the UPCSA considered the Civil Unions Act was at the 2008 General Assembly, when the General Assembly considered and debated a report of the Human Sexuality Committee of General Assembly.
26. The Human Sexuality Committee's report contained a section entitled "Comment from the Human Sexuality Committee of the UPCSA Subject: Implications of the Civil Unions Bill (sic) (Act 17 of 2006). This section of the Human Sexuality Committee's report contained the following subsections (the subsection headings are quoted verbatim):
26.1. Current UPCSA position on same sex marriage - This subsection set out the 2006 General Assembly's position as set out in the resolution quoted in 20 above and expressed the view that the resolution precludes homosexual marriages by implication, and instructs UPCSA marriage officers to conduct marriages only within the parameters of the definition of marriage, as affirmed by the 2008 General Assembly resolution. This section makes the point that there is an ambiguity between the denomination's statement on marriage and its statement on homosexuality, but concludes that the ambiguity creates a healthy tension, as it highlights the need between continuing dialogue between members of the UPCSA with opposing viewpoints on the matter.
26.2. Current practice allowable by the Civil Unions Bill (sic) - This subsection states the factual position in connection with marriages and civil unions. It is quoted verbatim:
Within South Africa, couples wishing to enter into a permanent union may decide to be married under the Marriage Act 25 of 1961 (applicable only. to heterosexual couples only), or enter a civil union under the new Civil Unions Act 17 of 2006 (this is applicable to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, whose union may be registered as a civil partnership or as a marriage). This means that since civil unions are regulated by a separate bill, hence clergy who are marriage officers under the Marriage Act 25 of 1961 do not automatically have the right to perform a civil union. Such authority is granted by the Department of Home Affairs, but only to denominational groupings and not to individuals. Thus it is required that the entire denomination 'opt in' before any individuals from it can be licensed to perform civil unions (and then only once they have been tested for proficiency in their knowledge of the Act). Should a denomination 'opt in', this doesn't however oblige all their ministers to perform civil unions, because the Act retains the right of individuals to refuse to do so on the grounds of conscience religion or belief.
In short, then, no ministers 0/ the UPCSA may per/orm civil unions at present (whether heterosexual or homosexual) or apply for a license to do so until such time as the General Assembly decides that the UPCSA should 'opt in'. There are a number of ministers who have already expressed a desire to petition the General Assembly in this regard, and it is suggested that others who are interested in being part of this contact the Committee, whose task it is to interpret the mind of the UPCSA in this regard and facilitate appropriate proposals if necessary.
26.3. How then might we relate to same-sex couples within UPCSA congregations? -_This subsection repeats the position that if anyone requests a minister to conduct a same-sex marriage or civil union, ministers are unable to accede to such requests. It goes on to state that 'to shrug such a request off with a "rule determined" refusal would be a grave error' and goes on to make suggestions as to how ministers might deal with same sex couples. These suggestions affirm the denomination's acceptance of homosexuals as Christians and as members of the denomination and emphasizes that ministers should follow their own consciences and choose how to respond to homosexual couples.
27. The 2008 General Assembly made the following decision in connection with the Human Sexuality Committee's report (see "DECISIONS OF THE 8TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY AFFECTING MINISTERS" at page 497 of Papers for the Executive Commission and General Assembly 2008):
2. Assembly receives the committee's 'Comment on the Implications of the Civil Unions Btlt' (sic) and sends it to UPCSA ministers and Sessions/church councils for study and comment to the convener.
3. The Assembly reminds all ministers and congregations of its statement and resolutions of 20061 and reminds them of the availability of the discussion document prepared by this committee.
28. The first decision, preceding those quoted in 12, was: "Assembly receives the report."
29. There was some debate in the written arguments as to the effect of the decision "Assembly receives the report. n In paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 of their response to the Paragraph 18.62 notification, the Respondents averred that the Human Sexuality Committee's report to the 2008 General Assembly was binding on ministers. In answer, Presbytery expressed the view that this was incorrect and that "Assembly receives the report. H simply means what it says, that Assembly has received the report, and confers no authority on any of the content of the report. In reply, the respondents contended that that this would be untenable and that when assembly receives a report, that report becomes a resolution of General Assembly. The Respondents took the somewhat unusual step of annexing an em ail from the Rev Alan Maker, a past moderator of General Assembly (and a past minster of St Columba's and colleague of Dr Young) to support their contention.
30. Both Presbytery and the Respondents are correct. If a report is submitted to General Assembly and that report contains specific proposals and General Assembly receives the report and says nothing further about it, then General Assembly must have adopted the proposals made in the report. If General Assembly receives a report and, following debate, makes resolutions relating to specific parts of the report, then those specific parts of the report are not adopted by General Assembly, but the subsequent resolutions are. It must follow that those parts of the report that are not dealt with in the resolutions that have followed debate are then adopted by General Assembly.
31 In the letter that Protea Valley sent to the Presbytery of eGoli, Rev Brent Russell states the following as the basis for Protea Valley's complaint against the Respondents: The General Assembly stated quite clearly in 2008 that, "In short, then, no ministers of the UPCSA may perform civil unions at present (whether heterosexual or homosexual) or apply for a license to do so until such time as the General Assembly decides that the UPCSA should" opt in". Rev Russell clearly interprets this as an instruction by General Assembly to Ministers that they may not perform civil unions or apply for a license to do so.
32. Because, presumably, of Presbytery's stance on the effect of receiving a report, the charges against the respondents are not based on the same premise as that upon which Rev Russell's complaint is based, but rather on the premise that paragraph 8 of the resolution of the 2006 General Assembly (quoted in 23 above) implies that ministers ofthe UPCSA are prohibited from conducting same sex civil unions.
33. Although the basis for Protea Valley's complaint is not the basis of Presbytery's charges against Dr Young and Prof Wolmarans, I wish to deal with it at this juncture.
34. The proposals that accompanied the Human Sexuality Committee's report to the 2008 General Assembly were the following:
1. Assembly receives the report;
2. Assembly endorses the committee's 'Comment on the Implications of the Civil Unions Bill' and commends it to UPCSA ministers and SeSSions/Church Councils;
3. The Assembly reminds al/ ministers and congregations of its statement and resolutions of 2006 ~ and reminds them of the availability of the discussion document prepared by this committee.
35. If the 2008 General Assembly had adopted the committee's proposals without amendment, Rev Russell would have been correct.
36. However, only proposals 1 and 2 were adopted without amendment, as mentioned in 27 above. Proposal 2 was not adopted. Instead, General Assembly resolved to receive "the committee's 'Comment on the Implications of the Civil Unions Bill' (sic) and sends it to UPCSA ministers and Sessions/church councils for study and comment to the convener. Even if this court were to find that tRe Human Sexuality Committee was proposing that the statement "In short, then, no ministers of the UPCSA may perform civil unions at present (whether heterosexual or homosexual) or apply for a license to do so until such time as the General Assembly decides that the UPCSA should opt in" should be an instruction to Ministers, this formed part of the committee's report that was not adopted by General Assembly, but that was instead sent to ministers and Sessions/Church Council's for comment.
37. That part of the Human Sexuality Committee's report that comprised the committee's 'Comment on the Implications of the Civil Unions Bill' (sic) was not unqualifiedly received by General Assembly and the committee's proposal in connection with it was not adopted. Instead, that part of the report was sent down to ministers and Sessions/Church Councils. It must therefore follow that nothing that was contained in that part of the Human Sexuality Committee's report that comprised the committee's 'Comment on the Implications of the Civil Unions Bill' (sic) was adopted by General Assembly and that, consequently, nothing that was contained in that part of the report constitutes a decision of or a direction by General Assembly.
38. It was also argued by Mr van der Unde that the commit tee's statement "In short, then, no ministers of the UPCSA may perform civil unions at present (whether heterosexual or homosexual) or apply for a license to do so until such time as the General Assembly decides that the UPCSA should opt in" was, in any event, not proposed as an instruction to ministers, but that it was merely a statement of the factual position. I respectfully agree with this argument:
38.1. The paragraph heading under which this statement falls is Current practice allowable by the Civil Unions Bill(sic). If the committee wished to propose the creation of a rule, it would have said so, or at the very least placed the statement in question under the next paragraph heading, namely: How then might we relate to same-sex couples within UPCSA congregations?
38.2. The text in question states that 'no ministers at the UPCSA may perform civil unions at present (whether heterosexual or homosexual).' A civil union between heterosexual people is available to them as an alternative to a marriage under the Marriage Act. It seems that, from a spiritual perspective, the Human Sexuality Committee and the UPCSA do not differentiate between a marriage and a civil union, as secular law does; it is clear that the UPCSA regards a civil union as a marriage. If, therefore, the committee wished to propose the creation of a rule, it would not have included heterosexual couples in the prohibition.
39. This Court is therefore satisfied that the Human Sexuality Committee did not propose a rule that no ministers of the UPCSA may perform civil unions at present (whether heterosexual or homosexual) or apply for a license to do so until such time as the General Assembly decides that the UPCSA should opt in, but was simply stating the factual position. In the event, though, it does not matter, as this is contained in that part of the report that was neither endorsed nor adopted by General Assembly, but sent down for comment, as outlined at some length above.
40.The UPCSA has not expressly forbidden its ministers from conducting same-sex civil unions. As previously mentioned, the charges against Dr Young and Prof Wolmarans are based on the premise that paragraph 8 of the resolution of the 2006 General Assembly quoted in 20 above implies that ministers of the UPCSA are prohibited from conducting same sex civil unions.
41.An implied prohibition (or instruction) cannot lightly be inferred. After considering all relevant facts and circumstances, it must be the only logical conclusion to be drawn.
42 It is opportune to quote the paragraph from which Presbytery seeks this Court to find that there is an implied prohibition upon UPCSA ministers from conducting same-sex civil unions:
8. To confirm the definition of Christian marriage set out by the Executive Commission in July 2005 where the Executive Commission affirmed that:
8.1. Christian marriage is defined within the UPCSA as an ordained covenant that exists between one man and one woman under God for life and holds this definition to be consistent with the authoritative rule of scripture as well as the tradition of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
8.2 The Executive Commission instructs all Marriage Officers affiliated with the UPCSA to remain faithful to the Church's definition of marriage and to exercise pastoral compassion and sensitivity in their dealings with all who approach the Church for assistance with marriage.
8.3 The Executive Commission exhorts all members of the church to uphold the sanctity of Christian marriage and to acknowledge its ro Context for the expression of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman.
43. It is a known fact that some (I venture to say many, if not all) ministers of the UPCSA conduct marriage services for divorcees. It is also a known fact that, during the course of marriage counselling and when it is clear that the parties to the troubled marriage cannot reconcile, some (again, many, if not all) UPCSA ministers will advise those whom they are counselling to seek a divorce. Ministers who do this are not accused of misconduct; it therefore follows that the UPCSA considers marrying divorcees and advising members to divorce when there is no prospect of restoring a relationship to be acceptable practice when measured against the definition of
Christian Marriage within the UPCSA.
44. But, on an extremely strict interpretation of the Executive Commission's instruction as quoted above, these events must offend the Church's definition of marriage. It must therefore follow that 8.2 of the 2006 General Assembly's resolution cannot be interpreted so as to imply that UPCSA ministers are prohibited from doing anything in connection with a marriage that is not entirely consistent with the idea of an ordained covenant that exists between one man and one woman under God for life. If this conclusion were wrong, then every minister who has married a divorcee or who has advised someone whom they were counselling to seek a divorce must be guilty of misconduct.
45. Other factors that must be taken into account when weighing up whether the Executive commission's instruction contains an implied prohibition against ministers conducting civil unions are the UPCSA's position on homosexuality as stated in the 2006 General Assembly resolution and that part of the 2008 Human Sexuality Committee Report that was received without qualification. It is clear from these that ministers were given the space, according to their individual consciences, to preach the Gospel in such a way as that people are enabled to engage in creative dialogue about same-sex relationships and the need for health and commitment in such relationships and to minister to same-sex couples and to help them to submit their relationship to God.
46. Taking all of these factors into account, it cannot be found that the only logical conclusion to be drawn from paragraph 8 of the 2006 General Assembly resolution is that ministers are forbidden from conducting, preaching at or blessing same-sex civil unions. Accordingly, this court cannot infer an implied prohibition upon ministers conducting, preaching at or blessing same sex civil unions. On the contrary, blessing same sex civil unions at the very least would be in line with the pastoral, supportive and accepting approach advocated by the 2006 resolution.
47. In the absence of an express or implied prohibition against ministers conducting same-sex civil unions, Prof Wolmarans' conducting of same-sex civil unions and Dr Young's preaching at and/or blessing same-sex civil unions or encouraging Prof Wolmarans to conduct same-sex civil unions cannot constitute misconduct.
48. In the result, the exception is upheld and the charges against Dr Young and Prof Wolmarans are dismissed.
(JOHANNESBURG ON 10 December 2015).
The following is recorded at the request of the dissenting members of the Court:
This judgment was written by Mr R 0 Twaddle
Rev M Cook Mrs S Hunt concur with Mr Twaddle's Judgment
Rev A Sontange, Mr N Ndlovu and Mr N caldwell dissent from paragraphs 41 to 48 of Mr Twaddle's judgment. Their view is that:
· the resolution of the 2006 General Assembly does create an implied rule that ministers of the UPCSA are prohibited from conducting civil unions; and
· consequently, the exception should be dismissed insofar as it relates to the acts of conducting civil unions on the part of Prof Wolmarans and encouraging Prof Wolmarans to conduct civil unions on the part of Dr Young.
The Convenor of this Court has a casting vote in addition to his deliberative vote.
The Convenor exercised his casting vote in favour of adopting the entire judgment
contained in paragraphs 1 to 48 as the judgment of this court.
TO:
AND TO:
AND TO:
Respondents' attorneys
Friedrich Incorporated
The Representative of the Presbytery of eGoli
Mr H W Cochrane
The Clerk of the Presbytery of eGoli
Mr Nathi Ndlovu
