Salvation Army Responds to Criticism of New Domestic Partner Policy

Salvation Army USA | November 6, 2001 | John Jones

[DeaconBenjamin]

Dear Freeper:

Thank you for your response to the recent news reports, and for allowing The Salvation Army this opportunity to provide some explanation.

The Salvation Army has issued a policy which allows local units to retain certain government contracts where the contract requires extending access to health benefits to a legally domiciled partner of an employee. This relates only to these contracts and is not a general provision to all employees. After weighing this issue for sometime, The Salvation Army felt it should not sacrifice its service to the thousands of persons who receive assistance through this funding source in exchange for denying access to benefits to the very few employees who choose to exercise this option.

This is not an endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle, but rather a contract requirement that enables The Salvation Army to continue valuable programs and services to the many people already being served, As supported by scripture, The Salvation Army does not support the homosexual lifestyle, but we must still sensitively minister to them as creatures of God, as we do all people.

May I ask that you give prayerful consideration to this issue and for The Salvation Army. Please do not judge the Army on this one decision, whether perceived to be right or wrong. The Army has provided tremendous service and will continue to do so. We trust we will merit your continued support for the millions who seek our services each year.

Sincerely,

John R. Jones, Major Community Relations & Development Secretary

[DeaconBenjamin]

The San Francisco Chronicle article which described how the Salvation Army caved on its policy is found here

[Media2Powerful]

As much as I don't love this I am not going to dog the Salvation Army over this one thing. They are a great organization and just trying to do the right thing.

[jimkress]

The Salvation Army felt it should not sacrifice its service to the thousands of persons who receive assistance through this funding source in exchange for denying access to benefits to the very few employees who choose to exercise this option.

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions ...

[billorites]

I expect many homosexuals will feel more comfortable working for Disney rather than the Salvation Army.

Still, you gotta love a guy in uniform!

[DeaconBenjamin]

PING

[anniegetyourgun]

"This is not an endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle..."

No, nothing like that.

[jimt]

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions ...

In this particular case it seems to be paved with tax dollars, or greed for them.

I used to give 100% of United Way donations to the Salvation Army, and always donated $20 or so each time I passed the "kettle". Even though I am agnostic, I supported their approach and their requiring results as the price of their help.

No more. Any charity picking my pocket via taxes is not a charity, IMHO. I'll find one who asks for donations in lieu of theft. I hope more people indicate their displeasure with this PC and tax-funds-greedy approach.

[Zack Nguyen]

"The Salvation Army felt it should not sacrifice its service to the thousands of persons who receive assistance through this funding source in exchange for denying access to benefits to the very few employees who choose to exercise this option."

So they threw principle out the window. Had they never taken government sheckles, they wouldn't be subject to government shackles.

[DeaconBenjamin]

Major Jones can be contacted by email at John_Jones@uss.salvationarmy.org. STAND UP AND BE COUNTED!

[jimkress]

Had they never taken government sheckles, they wouldn't be subject to government shackles.

Great response!!

[ikanakattara]

Just a morsel for thought: this is why government $$ for private schools are a bad idea too...

[goodnesswins]

HOW ABOUT THIS?.....WE start a list of charity organizations who take NO money from government, AND who don't cave to homosexual's......I'll offer to keep it, if y'all will contribute names...(don't think it'll take much of my time.)

[TomSmedley]

So they threw principle out the window.

Those are strong words, and unkind. As "General" Booth said, when asked about the wisdom of accepted tainted money, "I will wash it in the grateful tears of the widow, and present it a holy offering unto God." It's a pragmatic approach that takes hard-nosed and aggressive action against real and visible needs. This is the "filter" they view their lives and callings through.

Personally, I suspect that stolen money doesn't fructify. Perhaps, by accepting government money, they compromise the witness of the church. I suspect that the good people in the Salvation Army also compromise the integrity of the family by forbidding their employees to home school their kids.

There's room for good people to disagree on some of these issues. Prayer is in order when we see friends, collegues, and fellow Christians starting down dangerous roads.

[jimkress]

My e-mail to Major Jones:

God condemns adultery, fornication, and homosexuality in absolute terms. He does not excuse adultery, fornication, and homosexuality because they should be tolerated in order to serve a higher goal.

Your comments are an affront to God. Your organization should be ashamed of your actions. Until you retract your action, I will not contribute to, or support in any way, the Salvation Army.

If you never take government sheckles, you won't be subject to government shackles.

[Hank Kerchief]

The Salvation Army does not support the homosexual lifestyle... we only give them money.

Why does this guy remind me of Claude Rains, and why can I hear him saying, "We are shocked at the homosexual agenda," with his hand is out receiving money from the government that supports it?

What happened to character?

Hank

[Sabertooth]

They are a great organization and just trying to do the right thing.

Hard to do the right thing, when they're dong the wrong thing.

They should have avoided the taint of government control.

It's funny, because in the last year, it's become clear that the United Way is morally corrupt, and unworthy of contributions. In the last month the Red Cross has been shown to be finaqncially corrupt in their withholding of 9/11 contributions from the families of the victims.

The Salvation Army had a chance to be the last big game in town. A lot of money was going to flow to them that would have once gone to those other two "charities." Not so much anymore.

This was a stupid move.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Sigh. Lots of trouble brewing under the distraction of terrorism.

[PLMerite]

I always used to drop a couple bucks in the kettle every time I went past one (and I went past a lot of them) during the Holiday Season.

This year I think I may just pass them by.

I can still control what happens with some of my money.

[Hank Kerchief]

Thank you!

It's nice to know there's someone awake around here, or maybe your just a romantic.

Hank

[Egg]

The Salvation Army felt it should not sacrifice its service to the thousands of persons who receive assistance through this funding source in exchange for denying access to benefits to the very few employees who choose to exercise this option.

  Excuse me, but what happened to spreading the Gospel via helping the poor? You've got your priorities out of whack: you're trampling the Gospel to continue to feed the poor. I think you've perverted the intentions of William Booth, whom I'm sure would disapprove of this landmark compromise.

  If the tax money was so important for you to feed the poor in San Francisco, then you should've split town and let the citizens of Gomorrah find a way to take care of their own.

  BTW, thank you for making the other members of the Salvation Army who are still resisting the homosexual agenda look like radicals who won't do what those in San Francisco did.