Wow, if this doesn't demonstrate this is in fact a very big deal. On the one hand you say this is just to balance the church back to where it was and nothing in the standards have really changed, and then literally in the next paragraph you say, well of course this also means PCUSA must accept same-sex marriage.
Sexually immoral behavior cannot be made moral by then calling it marriage. That's a non-starter for Christians.
And I don't see how anyone can get around the fact the plain wording of 10-A removes all sexual morality requirements for ordained officers, plus the requirement to be obedient to Scripture.
I'm trying to avoid discussion of the acceptability of homosexuality, which is not permissible in CF. Hence I am telling you how the PCUSA is going to interpret things and what likely results are going to be. I am going to treat your views of the merits of the case as your opinion, because it would be a violation of the controversial topics rule for me to discuss the question of whether your opinion is valid or not. By using the term "opinion" I don't intend to sound dismissive.
I am not being inconsistent. There are two separate issues, homosexuality and other types of extra-martial intercourse:
1. Homosexuality
You have not shown any evidence that the situation we're in is any different from before G-6.0106b was added. (I refer to G-6.0106b for simplicity, although in fact there's a preceding AI that is also part of the picture.)
Before G-6.0106b was added we had gays elected as pastors. My church had one. Now that it is gone, quite likely they will be elected again.
My comment about needing to deal with gay marriage is not a reflection that anything is different from before G-6.0106b was added. In both cases we have gay pastors and church officers. My comment was that if this is going to be the case, I believe most people will prefer them to be married. I understand that you think it's a bad idea to allow gay officers in the first place, and that you think gay marriage is impermissible. But this isn't about your opinion, and I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion that is not permitted here. It is about events in the PCUSA. If the majority of the PCUSA is at least wiling to consider accepting gays as officers, and they clearly are, I think most likely they will prefer them to be married. As far as I can tell, the opinion that gay marriage is wrong is based on the opinion that gay sex is wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's a reasonable conjecture that a church that is willing to have gay officers will mostly prefer them to live a life that is otherwise in accordance with Christian ideals.
2. Other extra-marital intercourse.
Nothing has changed. The primary standard on sexual behavior has always been, and is still, Scripture and the confessions. People differ in their interpretation of these things. Again, you may think such differences are unacceptable, but we are not talking about your opinion.
G-6.0106b created no new standards. It simply reiterated specific standards taken from the confessions. That was clear from its wording. What its authors intended it to do was not to create new standards but to remove the discretion from ordaining bodies in how they interpreted and enforced the standards in the case of homosexuality. In G-6.0108, ordaining bodies are given the responsibility to decide how to apply those standards in specific case. In most cases, bodies are expected to evaluate the character of candidates as a whole. They may choose not view a particular problem as fatal in light of the person's life as a whole. G-6.0106b was intended to remove that discretion in the case of homosexuality. However whatever the authors might have intended to do, in 2006 and 2008, the GA issued authoritative interpretations that G-6.0106b did not remove the responsibility for bodies to use their judgement in applying standards. Since that's all that it intended to do, it ended up having no legal effect. It turned out to be simply a matter of increased emphasis.
It is absolutely still possible to challenge the propriety of ordination based on extra-marital sex, and it is also still possible to pursue disciplinary charges against persons engaged in it, officers or not. Those charges will be evaluated by the body of which the person is a member. Those bodies have differing views on the matter, just as they had differing views while G-6.0106b was in effect.
Note that G-6.0106b, whether it actually did anything or not, applies only to ordination. It did not apply to disciplinary cases.
At any rate, whether it had an effect or not, it was never used in cases other than homosexuality. It was clearly intended to deal with the gay issue. I'm fairly sure I would know if it had been used in any other cases, and I would also have known if there was any sign that thinking about gays had led the Church to a decision to clean up its act on sex more generally. For better of worse, there is simply no reason to think that the people involved in ratifying it intended it to apply to other extra-marital intercourse, nor that it was ever used in that way. (It is quite possible however that the people who proposed the wording would have liked to see that happen.) As it created no new standards, and didn't even intend to create new standards (it intended to, but apparently did not, remove discretion in applying the standards in the case of homosexuality for ordination), I believe my statement that removing it has no effect outside homosexuality is correct.
[In case you want to argue that we need to look at the literal wording and not the effect, note that the literal wording is breathtakingly broad. Taken literally it would prevent us from ordaining everyone from divorcees to workaholics.]
There is no reason to think that the people who approved the recent change had any intention to loosen any standard other than homosexuality, nor that it will have the effect of doing so. For those that are willing to enforce them, the standards are still in place to do so.