I took the following post from the Insights Mailing List.  It seems to have been mailed out to Victorian Clergy.  Walter Abetz is the Victorian Chair of EMU.

Our VIC Synod's General Secretary (Robert Johnston) has responsed today to a public challenge by Walter Abetz re. Assembly's validity in passing Resolution 84.

One of the questions was whether EMU was consulted. The other one was whether congregations or councils who did not support "gay ordination" could be taken to court.

Here is Robert's email response:

From: robert.johnson@vic.uca.org.au
Subject: RE: Synod Gen Sec's letter 29th July
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:09:30 +1000

1. The Involvement of EMU members in the forming of Proposal 84.

The Assembly Standing Committee did form a Task Group to get different parties together before the Assembly, to avoid having a multitude of different proposals which would be hard for the Assembly to deal with. It did this because EMU national leaders had written to the ASC asking for clarification, and also because there was a proposal coming from this Synod, and because both EMU and Uniting Network were reported as having a number of different proposals which they wished to bring. The process through which they went is spelled out in the Supplementary report of the ASC to the Assembly.

I have asked a number of people who were at the meeting in Adelaide. They make it clear that one of the EMU representatives was strongly opposed to anything suggested; others were hopeful of finding a way through. Mary Hawkes [National EMU Chair] was appointed to the continuation group so that she would be aware of what was developing and to enable input into the developing document. She was sent every email that went to everyone else. It is true that Mary did not agree with the direction of the proposal and I am told, said so on a couple of occasions. Graeme Humphris (an EMU member and Moderator-elect in SA) was also on the continuation group, and told me that he had agreed to the proposal coming to the Assembly, as a reasonable compromise. I think it fair to say that he was amazed at the reaction when it did come to the Assembly from like-minded colleagues, and I believe that he was not in favour of it after he heard how people were interpreting it.

The key point is that the resolution came in order to recognise what had already been resolved by the Assembly, to recognise that there are strongly held different viewpoints within the UCA, and to ask people to live in peace with one another, despite differences. The resolution does not adopt either view as the view or policy of the Uniting Church; it simply notes that these views are held by Uniting Church people. It does not seek to "relativise" celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage. This is not a standard which the Uniting Church in Australia has ever adopted. It has been proposed to the Assembly twice and on each occasion the previous question was moved and passed. I can find no evidence of it ever being adopted by any of the three churches coming into Union.

Walter, you clearly have a strong view that your exemption from discrimination under Victorian equal opportunity legislation is threatened by the Assembly agreeing to Proposal 84, and that therefore the UCA has no doctrine against homosexual behaviour. I can find no evidence that it ever did have such a doctrine. In any case, one needs to read the whole of the legislation, not just Section 75 (2) (a). As you would remember, the UCA asked for specific legal advice on this matter before the last Assembly, and obtained it from a former Equal >Opportunity Commissioner. I will quote from part of that advice:

The Victorian Act contains the broadest 'religious' exemptions in Australian anti-discrimination law. Section 75 (1) of the Victorian act provides that Part 3 (which prohibits discrimination generally) does not apply to the ordination of ministers of religion, the 'training or education of people seeking ordination ...' and 'the selection or appointment of people to perform functions in relation to, or otherwise participate in, any religious observance or practice'. Section 75 (2) excludes 'anything done by a body established for religious purposes that (a) conforms with the doctrines of the religion; or (b) is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of people of the religion.' Section 75 (3) extends the operation of S.75(2) to 'anything done in relation to the employment of people in any educational institution under the direction, control or administration of a body established for religious purposes.' Section 76 protects the practices of 'religious schools'.

Section 77 of the Victorian Act provides the broadest possible exemption for individuals. It excludes, also from the operation of Part 3, discrimination 'by a person against another person if discrimination is necessary for the first person to comply with the person's genuine religious beliefs or principles." 

However, as pointed out at the time, these exemptions do not apply to vilification or harassment.

Walter, you are free and welcome to continue associating with those with whom you disagree, and as your brother in Christ, I hope we can continue discussing and seeking together for the Church what is God's way forward for the Uniting Church.