Judicial Council Decisions Search
Decision No. 1020
October 28 2005
In Re: Review of Bishop's Decision of Law in the California-Nevada Annual Conference Related to the Adoption by the Annual Conference of a Definition for "Status" and the Refusal to Adopt a Definition for "Practicing" with Respect to the Enforceability of ¶ 304.3 of the 2004 Discipline in the Annual Conference.
Digest of Case
An annual conference’s definition of “status” does not affect the enforceability of ¶ 304.3 of the 2004 Discipline. The refusal of an annual conference to define “practicing” or “practicing homosexual” does not void or violate the enforceability of ¶ 304.3. The decisions of law of Bishop Beverly J. Shamana are affirmed.
Statement of Facts
During a regular session of the California-Nevada Annual Conference, the conference adopted various action items. Item 26 was entitled “Recommendation Regarding Defining the Word ‘Status’ as defined by the Book of Discipline 2004,” which embodied the following results:
Item 26: The California-Nevada Annual Conference hereby defines the word “status” as including sexual orientation such as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and transgendered. Item 27: The California-Nevada Annual Conference hereby specifically refuses and declines to define the word “practicing” or Practicing homosexual.”After the resolutions were adopted, a member of the annual conference requested a ruling of law from Bishop Beverly J. Shamana on the following questions:
1. Does our adoption of Item 26 defining “status” void, violate or otherwise pre-empt the force of law of ¶ 304.3 in the 2004 Book of Discipline? 2. Is the definition of “status” as adopted in Item 26 sufficiently overbroad as to render it ambiguous, unenforceable and/or violation of the principles of due process? 3. Does our refusal to define “practicing” in Item 27 void and/or violate the enforcement or enforceability of ¶ 304.3 in the 2004 Book of Discipline in the California Nevada Annual Conference. 4. Since “Self-Avowed practicing homosexual” is defined in footnote 1 on page 197 in the 2004 Book of Discipline, is Item 27 legal?The Bishop took the requests under advisement and delivered her rulings in writing within the time prescribed by ¶ 2609. In response to Question 1, the Bishop ruled that the adoption of Item 26 defining status does not violate or otherwise pre-empt the force of law of ¶ 304.3 of the 2004 Discipline. The Bishop ruled that Questions 2 and 4 are moot. The Bishop ruled in response to Question 3 that the refusal of the Annual Conference to define “practicing” does not void and/or violate the enforcement or enforceability of ¶ 304.3 of the Discipline.