Having just wrapped up their Spring session, the United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council (Supreme Court) has released three separate rulings regarding questions surrounding gays in the Church.

Two of the rulings went specifically to same gender marriage resolutions from the two California Annual Conferences. From the UMC news feed:

In the case of the California-Nevada Annual Conference, the council affirmed Bishop Beverly J. Shamana’s decision voiding a resolution passed by the regional group backing retired pastors who perform same-gender marriages.

“An annual conference may not legally negate, ignore or violate provisions of the (Book of) Discipline with which they disagree, even when the disagreements are based on conscientious objections to the provisions,” the council ruled.

Council member Belton Joyner Jr. filed a dissenting opinion.

In a separate decision, the council reversed California-Pacific Conference Bishop Mary Ann Swenson’s ruling supporting a conference resolution recognizing “the pastoral need and prophetic authority of our clergy and congregations to offer the ministry of marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples.”

In a concurring opinion, Jon Gray and the Rev. Kathy Austin Mahle wrote “church law can only be made by the General Conference and cannot be achieved through piecemeal resolutions adopted in an annual conference session.”

The 2008 General Conference, the denomination’s top legislative body, voted to retain its ban on same-gender marriages and to bar clergy from performing such marriages or consecrating them in the church. Pastors who perform same-gender unions risk losing their clergy credentials.

Separately, the Council declined to take up the issue of Decision 1032, brought by the Alaska Annual Conference, which requested clarification of 1032’s compatibility with Article IV of the Methodist constitution.

In the membership case, the council said it did not have jurisdiction to address possible competing claims in church rules because the request for a declaratory decision did not deal with an action by the Alaska Conference.

The case refers back to an earlier council ruling in favor of the right of a Virginia pastor, the Rev. Ed Johnson, to block a practicing homosexual from joining the congregation of South Hill (Va.) United Methodist Church. The council ruled the pastor of a local church has authority to determine a layperson’s readiness for membership.

None of these decisions are terribly surprising, but all are disappointing for those of us on this side of the issue. However, they each bear important witness to future generations of United Methodists. Regardless of what declarations the ultra-conservative members of the General Conference push through, we aren’t all in agreement on the issue of LGBT people’s lives and contributions to the Church.

Make no mistake, we will continue to work until the day all of God’s children are welcome in the United Methodist Church. The next stage begins soon as each Annual Conference takes up Amendment 1. (More on that tomorrow.)