Replies

I've been an extremely vocal and vociferous advocate in favor of the Salvation Army on FreeRepublic, encouraging all to donate to the Salvation Army as opposed to the Red Cross or United Way. It appears now that I may have been wrong.

I have copied and printed the first few paragraphs of the original article:

"The Salvation Army announced yesterday it would reverse its policy and offer domestic partners benefits to its workers, a move that will again allow the religious-based social service agency to compete for taxpayer money from San Francisco.
The Salvation Army severed ties with San Francisco city government in 1998 rather than comply with the city's landmark Equal Benefits Ordinance. The law requires city contractors to offer their employees with domestic partners -- gay or straight -- the same benefits as their married co-workers.
At the time, Salvation Army officials said the law conflicted with the organization's pro-family, Christian beliefs. Now, they say, the thinking is different. "I don't think there's been a theological shift," said Lt. Col. Bettie Love of the Salvation Army's Golden State Division. "I think there's been a new awareness of our world."
The new awareness hinges on an expanded definition of family. Before, the Salvation Army would allow workers to add only spouses and children to the benefits package. The new policy allows the benefits to be extended to any one adult in the household. That could be a domestic partner, a spouse, a roommate or another family member. "

I will be making multiple copies of this and it is one of those that I will be placing into each of the SA kettles that I will pass this year. I will not harass the ringers; it isn't their fault and they can't do anything about it. However, I agree with the earlier poster ... if many notes protesting this abandonment of principles are placed into the kettles, maybe the higher-ups will get the point.

Until then, I guess, I will donate locally to the church and the local Boy Scout troop.