Salvation Army drops partners provision after religious right blitz

Officials with the Salvation Army have dropped a plan to start offering domestic-partnership benefits to gay employees in the face of a strong Religious Right protest.

Army officials had approved the change during a meeting at the organization's Alexandria, Va., headquarters in October. The change was made to avoid losing government funding in communities that have passed measures requiring government contractors to offer domestic-partnership benefits. Communities in a handful of states, notably in California, have passed such laws.

The Army, which is organized as a religious denomination, released a statement saying that it does not approve of gay unions but asserting that it sees a difference between its officers, who are members of the denomination's clergy, and its civilian employees, who may or may not be church members.

"There exists a clear difference in how we deal with homosexuality as an employer and as a church in ministering to our followers," the statement insisted.

An Army official, Lt. Col. Bettie Love, also told the San Francisco Chronicle that the organization has come to understand that the definition of family has changed in recent years. "I don't think there's been a theological shift," Love said. "I think there's been a new awareness of our world."

The Army's move sent Religious Right leaders into a frenzy. In a statement issued by Focus on the Family, James Dobson blasted the group for making decisions "based on cultural considerations - rather than on what is right and ethical - and of course on the impact of federal money."

Dobson accused the Salvation Army of abandoning a century of "moral integrity" and called on Army officials to reconsider. To turn up the heat, the Colorado Springs-based radio counselor urged his supporters to bombard the Army's headquarters with phone calls and letters. In early November, an anonymous operator at the office told The Washington Mmes that the calls were coming in at a fast clip.

"We had six lines going at once," the operator said. "Every line was lit up. It's been fun. I went home and fell right to sleep, I was so exhausted."

Tom Minnery, FOF's vice president for public policy, was even more shrill in his outrage. Minnery, called the policy shift "an appeasement of sin" and said Army officials' defense of it was "monstrous," "egregious" and "disgusting." (In early November, Focus on the Family hosted a meeting for 100 evangelical leaders at its Colorado Springs headquarters to discuss "the threat posed by homosexual activism.")

Other Religious Right groups were quick to pile on. In Sacramento, the Capitol Resource Institute, a FOF affiliate, accused Army leaders of compromising "their own moral values."

The American Family Association's California branch was also upset. "We are very, very disappointed that the Salvation Army has capitulated to the homosexual pressure," said AFA's Scott Lively. Lively called the decision "a betrayal.. of the church and of the profamily movement" and added that he believes the Salvation Army made the decision because it had become dependent on government funds.

Facing mounting criticism, Salvation Army officials quickly reversed course. On Nov. 12, the Army released a statement caving in the Religious Right's demands. "Today, November 12, 2001, the Commissioners' Conference established a national policy to extend health benefit access to an employee's spouse and dependent children only," read the statement by Commissioner Lawrence R. Moretz.

The statement continues, "In rescinding this policy and in the establishment of a national policy on health care benefit access to spouse and dependent children, we must stand united in the battle that will undoubtedly follow from those who would now challenge our biblical and traditional position. We will not sign any government contract or any other funding contracts that contain domestic partner benefit requirements. This will mean that we may need to walk away from historical funding sources or cut back service in communities where such opposition or local regulations conflict with our policy. We must be prepared for this, and prayerfully accept the challenge to seek funding and continue our ministry that will not compromise any of our principles."

The issue of gay rights has frequently vexed the Salvation Army, in part because of the organization's reliance on government funds. In 1998 Salvation Army officials dropped contracts with San Francisco rather than abide by the city's domestic-partnership law for contractors. In the years that followed, the Salvation Army gave up $3.5 million in city money used for drug rehabilitation services, meal programs for the elderly and other programs, reported the San Francisco Chronicle.

Earlier this year, the Army drew sharp criticism for an attempt to strike a deal with the White House to support the Bush "faith-based initiative" in exchange for federal protections from local civil rights laws that protect gays. The backroom arrangement fell apart when it was publicized in The Washington Post.

Copyright Americans United for Separation of Church and State Dec 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved