Same-sex benefits recommended By Parker T. Williamson The Layman Online Wednesday, June 23, 1999 FORT WORTH - In a deeply-divided vote, a committee of the General Assembly has recommended that the Board of Pensions of the Presbyterian Church (USA) conduct a feasibility study on offering medical and pension benefits to lay employees who are engaged in same-sex partnerships. The vote was 20 for, 15 against with 5 abstentions. Submitted to the General Assembly as Overture 99-74, the original motion called for extending benefits to all denominational benefits plan members who are engaged in "long-term, committed relationships." That proposal drew fire from several commissioners who pointed out that the Presbyterian Church constitution prohibits the ordination and installation of persons who engage in sex outside of marriage. A self-contradiction Rev. Robert Henley of Eastminster Presbyterian Church, Wichita, Kansas told the committee, "This proposal asks the Board of Pensions to do something that the constitution does not allow. Henley reminded the committee that in two national referenda, Presbyterians had clearly declared that they do not approve of sexual activity outside of marriage. "This proposal is intended to put the ordination of homosexuals back on the table," he said. "If it passes," he warned, "it will become a major battle ground." Donald Baird, of Fremont Presbyterian Church in Sacramento, said, "This overture is patently absurd. It proposes subsidizing those who are openly in violation of what the church requires. It would be difficult for me to explain to my congregation that our church says marriage is our sexual ethics standard but we will provide benefits for those who don't live up to it." Amending the overture The ordination standards argument apparently sent overture advocates in search of a fall-back strategy. On the following day, they came up with a different approach. Rev. Richard Lundy, overture advocate from the Presbytery of the Twin Cities, urged the committee to amend the overture to focus on benefits for non-ordained employees of the Presbyterian Church (USA). This amendment, he said, would take the ordination controversy out of the debate and concentrate on "justice" for lay employees. Appealing to culture Lundy's proposal to amend the motion was quickly adopted, opening the door for consideration of pleas that had been made by a succession of gay/lesbian/bisexual speakers. "This is not about ordination standards." said Laurene LaFontaine, a lesbian minister from Denver. "It's about civil rights." LaFontaine named companies like Apple Computer, Levi Straus, and the city of Denver as examples of corporate groups that provide medical and pension benefits to same-sex couples. Lesbian "evangelist" Jane Spahr, who had just been showcased with a "Woman of Faith Award" from the Women's Ministries Program Area of the General Assembly Council, said "Friends, this is about health care and bereavement rights, insurance for loved ones … I don't care what your sexual orientation is. I want you to be able to have a healthy life together." Carol Shanholtzer contested Spahr's testimony saying, "Marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. Our denomination has no policy requiring that we treat same-sex relationships in the same way as we treat marriage." But Rev. Harold Porter, who claimed more than 100 gay/lesbian/bisexual members in his congregation, said that the Presbyterian Church is falling behind cultural ethical standards. Citing employment policies of the Walt Disney Corporation, he said "the world is going forward on this, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) is in a tail light position." Head lights vs. tail lights That brought a rejoinder from Rev. James Hazelett, of Cascades Presbytery, who said, "The church is not in the business of copying culture. Frankly, I don't care what Coors Beer says about same-sex relationships. When we say no to cultural trends, we become headlights, not tail lights." Hazelett also argued that the overture's endorsement of "long-term, committed relationships" is dangerously vague. "How shall we define "long-term, committed relationships?" he asked. "How long is 'long,' and what about heterosexual couples in 'open marriages' who say they are in 'committed relationships?'" Having successfully urged the committee to turn its attention away from the denomination's ordination standards, Lundy zeroed in on benefits for lay employees. He spotlighted a letter that was written by General Assembly Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick on behalf of the denomination in which Kirkpatrick argued for the civil rights of gay/lesbian/bisexual persons. Lundy pointed out that Kirkpatrick's letter had specifically affirmed the "pension rights" of same-sex partnerships. Hypocrisy Lundy then argued that Kirkpatrick's public position had placed the denomination in a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, it was advocating equal pension/health care benefits for homosexuals, and on the other hand, its own Board of Pensions was refusing those rights to same-sex employees of the Presbyterian Church. Lundy's argument received an enthusiastic "amen" from Rev. Harry Smith, Chairman of the denomination's Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI). Smith said that in January his committee met with representatives from other denominations to decide which corporations they would target for moral offenses. Other denominational groups wanted to file shareholder resolutions against Exxon Corporation, he reported, because Exxon fails to provide benefits for its same-sex employees. But, said Smith, that posed a problem for the Presbyterian delegation because its own Board of Pensions does not extend full benefits to same-sex Presbyterians. Smith argued that MRTI found itself in a "hypocritical situation." He said his group was asking the General Assembly to "correct this hypocrisy." Lundy and Smith's arguments hit their mark with the committee which voted 20-15-5 to recommend that the General Assembly approve their amended overture that includes a feasibility study of medical and pension benefits for lay employees who are living in "long-term, committed same-sex relationships." |
|
| E-mail
your response to Fort Worth We welcome your e-mail response to this story and will display your comments on a TV screen for commissioners and visitors to the General Assembly in Fort Worth. Please keep your response brief. |
|
| The
Layman Online daily coverage 1999 General Assembly issues The Top Ten issues at General Assembly Capsule reports on the past 10 General Assemblies |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|
