My apologies—the sentence in question is commentary not part of the motion (this is why it's easier writing for Forum Letter, you have an editor

)
My point being that since there wasn't sufficient biblical or theological justification given in either the Social Statement or the motion for this change in policy, it came down to a discussion of rights. Further, to my knowledge it was never the policy of the ELCIC to disqualify candidates for ministry on the basis of sexual orientation as the motion implies. The 1989 Bishops' statement simply said candidates were expected to be chaste in either singleness or marriage (back when marriage was one man and one woman) thus homoerotic relationships were grounds for disqualification, but not any more.
Again, sorry for the confusion.