And I quote, "A San Rafael minister who presided over several same-sex ceremonies didn't violate Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) rules, because same-sex marriages don't exist in the church, a church court ruled Tuesday." How's that for rhetorical run-around? The article is here, and it talks more about the confusion.
HT: World on the Web, where Harrison Scott Key also writes, "In related news, the same church court ruled that a man who committed intellectual suicide in a local church sanctuary isn’t actually dead, because intellectually sound behavior doesn’t exist in many PCUSA churches, either."
Whichever side of the debate you're on, surely it's at least better to pick a side rather than spew decisive nothings into the melee?