On this page I wish to address some common fallacies about Proposal 84.  There have been numerous claims that something was underhand or at least improper about the way Proposal 84 came into being.  I have listed the particular claims I deal with under this paragraph, but claim 2, that Assembly was "stacked" is a fairly important basis of my comments about others, so it should be read.

No one knew Homosexuality was on the agenda

Assembly was stacked

It's not about numbers

The issue was won by a narrow majority

Proposal 84 is un-Constitutional- the biblical argument

Proposal 84 is un-Constitutional- the "legal" argument

No one knew Homosexuality, especially anything like Proposal 84, was on the Agenda.
This is simply not true.  My partner received a lobbying letter from the Fellowship for Renewal requesting her to consider prayerfully the way she would approach the issue at Assembly.  EMU members were party to negotiations before Assembly.  The Assembly Standing Committee held a Consultation in Adelaide, with participants drawn from the Uniting Network, EMU, ethnic communities and other areas of the Uniting Church. Reference to the Supplementary Report will make it clear that the notion that Proposal 84 was somehow sprung on Assembly embers is simply not true. EMU had specifically invited representation at this meeting.

It was unanimously agreed that people of deep faith have wrestled with this issue with integrity and have come to mutually exclusive positions.

Most participants at the consultation consider that the church has been able to hold together, by the grace of God, even while many members hold different positions on a matter that is of great importance to them. For some members of the church the only sexual ethics is summarized by "celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage. Whereas for other members the guiding sexual ethics is referred to as "right relationships" as discussed in the report to the 8th Assembly - Uniting Sexuality and Faith. While recognising the difficulty that will be involved, most people at the consultation consider that it should continue to be the goal of the Uniting Church to live as a community of faith where different opinions about human sexuality and participation in the church are respected. Such a course of action requires that there is scope for discussion within the life of the Uniting Church and room for individual conscience and judgement at a number of points. (From the Report)

Assembly was stacked
Sometimes there has not been enough honesty to say this straight out. So we hear "The few people who went to Assembly were overwhelmed by the gay lobby."

Assembly consists of 250 members. Any confirmed member of the Uniting Church can be elected to Assembly. Assembly is made up of church members.

These members are elected by presbyteries and synods according to a well documented and publicly available formula. Presbyteries and synods are themselves elected by local congregations.

For more than a decade the anti-homosexual lobby has been able to work on this issue and nominate people to presbytery and synod, and ultimately to the Assembly. Assembly was not stacked. It is simply the case that even after more than a decade of lobbying they do not have the numbers to force their point of view upon the church.

This is an important issue.  EMU has enough support to gather in excess of 20,000 signatures in less than a month. (Although what these signatures represent is open to question.)  And yet, despite this apparent massive grass roots support, the membership of the church does not consider their overall stance appropriate; they do not have the numbers.

(It's not about numbers, but the will of God.)
Another common complaint is that the issue is not about numbers, but the will of God. This is true, but we accept that the issues of the church, if we cannot arrive at a consensus will be determined by the numbers of a vote.  Oddly, although numbers "do not count" EMU frequently seeks to use the argument that they do:

Rather more disturbingly, the UCA Assembly needs to ask how it has become so unrepresentative of congregational members. How can it pass something, which, according to the sexuality survey in 1996, 82% of UCA members don’t want? (Rev Nick Hawkes )

The issue was won by a narrow majority
The claim here is that since it was such a near thing, and since the issue was so important the decision should not have been made.  It was no near thing. Conservatives at Assembly refused to act by consensus on this issue. This meant that for Proposal 84 even to be put to a vote, 75 per cent of Assembly had to be in favour. Then the Proposal itself needed to be passed by a 75 per cent majority.

Assembly was not stacked. The vote was not a near thing; it was a landslide. The real issue is that some conservatives will not accept that Assembly discerns the Spirit of God, and is not bound by their veto.

Proposal 84 is un-Constitutional - the Biblical Argument
The challenge here is two fold.  One is simply that the argument is not biblical. The other, which is very important, is that the very non-biblical nature of Proposal 84 makes it un-Constitutional in the Uniting Church.
This second argument says that since the Basis of Union commits us to the authority of scripture is certain ways, then if we depart from this authority, i.e. if we depart from the Basis of Union, then we are behaving in an unconstitutional manner.
This second argument only holds any weight if it can be shown that the church is being non-biblical.  Clearly, this is not the case.  Although Nick Hawkes writes: 

To say that the Bible does not consistently condemn homosexual acts is to engage in interpretive gymnastics that border on the incredulous. To claim that all biblical prohibitions of homsexual (sic. ed.) acts be dismissed as mere cultural idiosyncrasies (like attidudes (sic. ed.) to slavery and women leaders) is to trivialise the debate and show an ignorance of the Bible's condemnation of slave traders (1 Tim 1:10) and positive references to women in leadership. Christianity was seen to be emancipatory for both women and slaves very early in its history, a fact which probably prompted Celsus to say it was only fit for, "slaves, women and little children" in his attack on Christianity in 220AD . In fact, one of the reasons Christians were first persecuted was because their attitude to slavery threatened an empire which was reliant on slaves

In reality the Assembly is saying that the person using "interpretative  gymnastics" is Nick!  This is not the place for the full biblical argument, (see here and here) but I will observe that:
1.  The theology and interpretation upon which Assembly has relied is the standard scholarly biblical exegesis used today; the conservative biblical exegetical methods are the ones I think use special pleading.  
2.  More than this, this standard interpretative framework is used for all other documents in life read by members of EMU.  It is the way we live! They choose to then put Scripture in a different category, basing faith on a special interpretative method that they would dis-espouse anywhere else in life.

The idea that Proposal 84 is un-Biblical depends on EMU convincing the church that its exegetical method is correct.  The facts of the matter are that it has not.  Assembly, not stacked, has consistently said, "No! We either, find the Spirit leading us in another direction or, are not yet convinced that your argument is biblical."  One could argue that EMU, in refusing to accept the voice of the Spirit discerned at Assembly are the ones being unconstitutional!

Proposal 84 is un-Constitutional- the "legal" argument
This is a serious claim.  It should be treated with seriousness for if it is correct then we need to address the issue quickly.  It is also serious, because it implies considerable dishonesty on the part of the church leadership.  Indeed, Rod James has written a piece called Why the Uniting Church is acting dishonestly. In this article Rod carefully makes a case that Assembly has used "clever footwork" to let homosexual people into the church. It has made changes essentially contrary to the Basis of Union and engages in "dishonesties [which] emerge from one fundamental act of dishonesty", that is a refusal to affirm the authority of Scripture. 

Similar arguments can be found elsewhere.  I have chosen Rod's article because of Rod himself.  Rod is well known for his careful holding of Synod's to account.  I have never been to a Synod where Rod has not made points of order.  I have no problem with this.  We need people to hold us to account. I asked if Rod had done the same at Assembly 2000. In fact, my colleague remembered the President suggesting that the groans in response to Rod's point of order at one stage were inappropriate.  What I want to say is that in an Assembly, 

• where frequent points of order are permitted, albeit adjudged incorrect,

• which has been appointed by the whole church after some 15 years lobbying by conservatives

• where everyone is well aware that not following due process in a contentious issue will lead to dispute and perhaps even legal action

what are we saying if we claim the church is dishonest ("a plethora of dishonesties",) or underhand?  We are laying that claim at the feet of a great number of people, not some "thing."  We are saying that Dean Drayton, Terrence Corkin, Wendy Wilkie, Jan Trevgove and 240-something people are being dishonest.  We are saying that after 6 years, no one has acted on some of these distortions and dishonesties?!

Perhaps we may have to accept that the gathered church, according to the Basis of Union, thinks we are wrong.

I appreciate Rod's paper, because it lays out the facts as he sees them.  It does not stoop to innuendo, and it is not laced with the violent anger with a veneer of piety that I have read in some emails.  However much I disagree with him, he is maintaining civility and being upfront about his argument, two things vital to any maintenance of the unity of the church.

That said, I will trust the church.  My experience of Assembly has not been of dishonesty, but of a fundamental desire for truth, justice and the honouring of God.

Excerpt from Rod's paper.

The Assembly has thus spawned a plethora of dishonesties as groups and individuals act politically to influence particular decisions of congregations, presbyteries and synods. Examples include:

• The original document, Current Policy on Homosexuality (1997) incorrectly stated the Church’s policy, having interpreted the term sexual orientation in ASC minute 87.46 as including persons practising homosexuality. This piece of clever footwork enabled the document to claim that there was no bar to the full participation of homosexual persons… within the life of the congregation. Clearly the writer of the document used the confusion of terms to give a distorted account of Current Policy as affirming homosexuality in the life of the Church. (Rod James)