G.S. Motion 30 : Legal Challenge Dismissed

Judicial Committee Rules on Motion 30

22 Apr 2015

In September 2014 three applicants applied to the Judicial Committee of the Church, asking for three questions to be answered in the matter of Motion 30 passed by the General Synod/Te Hīnota Whānui held at Waitangi in May 2014:

1. Is any form of recognition of same-gender relationships in public worship unconstitutional?

2. Is any form of blessing of same-gender relationships in public worship unconstitutional?

3. Is clause 4 of Motion 30 unconstitutional in whole or part?

The Judicial Committee met on 2 March 2015 and gave an oral decision that has been followed by written reasons on 18 April 2015. Two reports are attached: the one from the Judicial Committee, and the other from Mr Jeremy Johnson, Vice-Chancellor of the Diocese of Christchurch, that he made to Standing Committee following his submission on behalf of the Diocese of Christchurch. The Committee noted: “In particularly succinct and helpful submissions presented by Mr J Johnson, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Christchurch took the position that this Committee lacked jurisdiction to determine the Application”.

Double click on the icons below for downloading and reading the respective documents.

Judicial Committee Decision final version April 2015 483.95 kB

Report to Standing Committee on Judicial Committee hearing 2 March 15 283.80 kB

____________________________________________________________

A very clear decision was made at a Judicial Committee hearing recently to dismiss the legal challenge made by a small group of objectors to the passage of Motion 30 at the last Meeting of the General Synod of ACANZP.

The substance of Motion 30 touched upon the matter of the attitude of our Church in Aotearoa/new Zealand and Polynesia towards the possible authorisation of Same-Sex Relationships recognition, that obviously did not find acceptance by the Appellants  – on the grounds of such a consideration being unconstitutional and in conflict with existing Church Doctrine and  Tradition. The mistake made by the Appellants was to think that the Judicial Committee had the right to determine the outcome of the substance of the Appeal.

Our own Christchurch Diocesan Vice-Chancellor, Mr. Jeremy Johnson – on behalf of our Diocesan Standing Committee – presented arguments that only General Synod itself could determine the legal standing of Motion 30 as being constitutional, or not – and the application of the objectors was ultimately dismissed.

This makes clear that objections to the actions of General Synod cannot be varied by any authority other than that of General Synod itself (or a body appointed by General Synod to carry out that specific purpose). Any attempt to undermine the authority of General Synod needed to be clearly resisted, as was surely right and proper in this circumstance. 

Father Ron Smith, Christchurch, New Zealand
Advertisements

About kiwianglo

Retired Anglican priest, living in Christchurch, New Zealand. Ardent supporter of LGBT Community, and blogger on 'Thinking Anglicans UK' site. Theology: liberal, Anglo-Catholic & traditional. regarding each person as a unique expression of Christ, and therefore lovable.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to G.S. Motion 30 : Legal Challenge Dismissed

  1. Michael Primrose says:

    Hi Fr. Ron,

    It would appear that the latest attempt to scupper Motion 30 has fallen rather flat. Presumably all of the travel expenses and the costs of the legal opinions to hear this challenge have to come from some where. If it was from the Church, then the money could have been spent on more deserving causes rather than purely pandering to some petty prejudices.

    The trouble is that it’s probably just one of many challenges that will dog Motion 30 through its long debate. The challenges seem to be getting sillier and more desperate with time, however, all of them have to be stopped and rebutted, one by one,so we can finally get down to discussing whether or not Motion 30 is actually acceptable.

    But that is another long discussion

    In Friendship

    Michael Primrose
    Christchurch

    • kiwianglo says:

      You are right, Michael. When one considers who were the actual protesters against Motion 30, it should not be too surprising. The big mistake they made was to presume that they could, by questioning the constitutional legality of Motion 30 to the Judicial Committee of G.S., undercut the proper procedure for such an action; which requires a decision of General Synod itself. As you say: money no object – for the appellants? I fear we may not have heard the last of the 3 appellants!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s