s/o curious - Salvation Army Dilemma

[Kattey]

So I am aware of Salvation Army's anti-GLBT stance and how difficult they make thing for those that try to use their shelters. However I have a dilemma that I'd like your opinions on.

In my smaller town SA operates the ONLY domestic abuse shelter in more than 30 miles. As a former victim of DV, I'd really love to volunteer my time/money helping others that are going through what I've been through.

So do I overlook SA's stance on GLBT to help others against domestic violence? Or find some other way to help that doesn't include Salvation Army?

I'm really not sure

[fernane]

I guess start by asking yourself this question: "do I believe the only people who can help victims of domestic violence are those who are also tolerant of homosexuality?"
However you answer will let you know which route to take.
To me they are two completely separate issues and I wouldn't be so intolerant of another's political views on one topic stop me from working with them in other areas, but you might feel differently.

[dev22]

Can you ask what your local branch/location's policy is regarding victims of abuse in same sex relationships? I think that is where I would start.

[bqbride]

Jun 26, 2012 4:34:23 GMT -5 fernane said:

I guess start by asking yourself this question: "do I believe the only people who can help victims of domestic violence are those who are also tolerant of homosexuality?"
However you answer will let you know which route to take.
To me they are two completely separate issues and I wouldn't be so intolerant of another's political views on one topic stop me from working with them in other areas, but you might feel differently.

It is not intolerance of their political view. It is refusing to support an organization that discriminates against gays and lesbians. Would it also be intolerant to refuse to support an organization that did not provide funding to people of color? Ridiculous statement.

OP, I have the same issue with a Catholic ministry in my area. I abhor giving money to the Catholic church for a number of reasons, but this church feeds 650-1000 hungry people/day in my community, 365 days/year, and all with private donations. That is a lot of hungry people in my city, and no other local agency provides as much help or makes such good use of their donations, so I hold my nose and donate to them. Bottom line, I feel that the good that this specific charity provides in my community outweighs my reservations about donating to a Catholic charity. That is a decision that you have to make for yourself.

[pamela]

I think you providing volunteer hours is different than a monetary contribution that could be used to support things you don't agree with. You may also ask about giving a directed donation so that they have to use it for dometic violence support.

[chichimi]

Jun 26, 2012 4:34:23 GMT -5 fernane said:

I guess start by asking yourself this question: "do I believe the only people who can help victims of domestic violence are those who are also tolerant of homosexuality?"

I think this is a good way to weigh things. Look into what their policy actually is. If the main issue is not housing same sex couples as a family unit, then I wouldnt have a problem because they also dont house unmarried hetero couples as a family unit.
I think it would be a great way to influence your local organization from within and serve as an ally to homosexual victims.

[fernane]

Jun 26, 2012 8:41:41 GMT -5 @bqbride said:

Jun 26, 2012 4:34:23 GMT -5 fernane said:

I guess start by asking yourself this question: "do I believe the only people who can help victims of domestic violence are those who are also tolerant of homosexuality?"
However you answer will let you know which route to take.
To me they are two completely separate issues and I wouldn't be so intolerant of another's political views on one topic stop me from working with them in other areas, but you might feel differently.

It is not intolerance of their political view. It is refusing to support an organization that discriminates against gays and lesbians.

So even in an area the OP agrees on, "not supporting" the entire org. Is the answer when it is only detrimental to others in need that could really benefit from what she has to offer? Does that end really justify the means? Where does pride end and humanity begin?
It's Moreso intolerant to not accept someone because of one specific view they differ on. We all have the same right to our political opinions, why hate or put down others just because they don't see every single thing the same way we do? If we could get beyond that we could actually see the areas we agree on and work together on some things. If only our leaders would take note of that!

[GailGoldie]

Jun 26, 2012 8:47:06 GMT -5 @littlemoxie said:

There is no shame in having priorities; we all do. Some people care about the environment, others animal testing, some care about fair labor practices, some care about choice issues, etc. We'd all be very hard-pressed to live and consume in today's world if we didn't choose our battles, so to speak.

I think Moxie says it well here. Don't stop helping others if you believe that your time spent there is really helping, and not hurting anyone (ie- you aren't part of anything against anyone, etc).

[2vermont]

Jun 26, 2012 8:51:45 GMT -5 @chichimi said:

Jun 26, 2012 4:34:23 GMT -5 fernane said:

I guess start by asking yourself this question: "do I believe the only people who can help victims of domestic violence are those who are also tolerant of homosexuality?"

I think this is a good way to weigh things. Look into what their policy actually is. If the main issue is not housing same sex couples as a family unit, then I wouldnt have a problem because they also dont house unmarried hetero couples as a family unit.
I think it would be a great way to influence your local organization from within and serve as an ally to homosexual victims.

I think this is exactly what the policy is IIRC.

[meshaliuknits]

Jun 26, 2012 10:36:38 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Jun 26, 2012 8:51:45 GMT -5 @chichimi said:

I think this is a good way to weigh things. Look into what their policy actually is. If the main issue is not housing same sex couples as a family unit, then I wouldnt have a problem because they also dont house unmarried hetero couples as a family unit.
I think it would be a great way to influence your local organization from within and serve as an ally to homosexual victims.

I think this is exactly what the policy is IIRC.

What if the gay couple is legally married in that state?

[Deleted]

I've been in your shoes. The SA here is the largest food bank and also helps teen moms. I run a food drive for them every year and I will continue to do o because the help they provide in our community far outweighs any harm they do. Plus locally they dont discriminate against anyone, the pastor is very much about equal rights for all.

[2vermont]

Jun 26, 2012 10:44:13 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

Jun 26, 2012 10:36:38 GMT -5 2vermont said:

I think this is exactly what the policy is IIRC.

What if the gay couple is legally married in that state?

They probably don't recognize it and therefore I think the couple has to stay in separate quarters. I'm pretty sure they aren't turned away just because they are gay. But I could be wrong.

[llama]

Jun 26, 2012 11:36:23 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Jun 26, 2012 10:44:13 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

What if the gay couple is legally married in that state?

They probably don't recognize it and therefore I think the couple has to stay in separate quarters. I'm pretty sure they aren't turned away just because they are gay. But I could be wrong.

Officially this is their policy. I still take issue with that because I think it's ridiculous that any family unit would not be treated equally.

HOWEVER, and this is a big caveat, the policy as enforced (rather than as stated) often involves turning same-sex couples away because they know they are gay (vs a single person being able to be more covert/not be identified as LGBT) and/or subjecting them to preaching or verbal abuse about how homosexuality is a sin. It also often includes turning away people they suspect to be gay or gender variant.

I wouldn't volunteer time, money, or resources to the Salvation Army, but that is more because I have better options locally of places I could donate. If you think you'll feel guilty about ti just try to support a pro-LGBT organization in some way, or try to work with your local Salvation Army to get them to relax the policy and/or promote more accepting treatment of LGBT-identified people who come to them in your community. It's likely that local branches have some latitude in interpreting the policy, and of course all locations can choose whether they will allow their staff and volunteers to harass or verbally abuse people who use their services.

[dev22]

Jun 26, 2012 11:36:23 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Jun 26, 2012 10:44:13 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

What if the gay couple is legally married in that state?

They probably don't recognize it and therefore I think the couple has to stay in separate quarters. I'm pretty sure they aren't turned away just because they are gay. But I could be wrong.

So you are going through an already horrific time in your life (hence why yuo had to turn to the SA for help and shelter), and in that moment you also have to be seperated from your spouse - the person you want and/or need to lean on the most? Yeah, that pisses me off. They don't need to turn people away to completely demean them.

[2vermont]

Jun 26, 2012 17:34:51 GMT -5 dev22 said:

Jun 26, 2012 11:36:23 GMT -5 2vermont said:

They probably don't recognize it and therefore I think the couple has to stay in separate quarters. I'm pretty sure they aren't turned away just because they are gay. But I could be wrong.

So you are going through an already horrific time in your life (hence why yuo had to turn to the SA for help and shelter), and in that moment you also have to be seperated from your spouse - the person you want and/or need to lean on the most? Yeah, that pisses me off. They don't need to turn people away to completely demean them.

No, I completely get that, but they will not allow unmarried hetero couples to stay together either....and they also went through a horrific time in their life. If we are going to go with demeaning, then I guess then they are also being demeaned, no?

[llama]

Jun 26, 2012 17:50:15 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Jun 26, 2012 17:47:17 GMT -5 2vermont said:

No, I completely get that, but they will not allow unmarried hetero couples to stay together either....and they also went through a horrific time in their life. If we are going to go with demeaning, then I guess then they are also being demeaned, no?

They at least have the option of being married. A same-sex couple has a 1/5 chance of that option currently.

:Y:

I think there is a huge difference between straight couples who choose not to marry or who have not gotten married yet and same-sex couples that do not have the option to get married or who are married but the SA refuses to acknowledge their marriage. Straight people are free to decide when they want to marry with the knowledge of what benefits and responsibilities that marriage will carry with it.

[dev22]

Jun 26, 2012 17:50:15 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Jun 26, 2012 17:47:17 GMT -5 2vermont said:

No, I completely get that, but they will not allow unmarried hetero couples to stay together either....and they also went through a horrific time in their life. If we are going to go with demeaning, then I guess then they are also being demeaned, no?

They at least have the option of being married. A same-sex couple has a 1/5 chance of that option currently.

And even if they were LEGALLY married, Salvation Army would not recognize it. I am talking about legally married same-sex couples here, not cohabitating ones - although most same-sex couples don't have the right to be married anyway, so that is not exactly fair either, but that is an argument for another time. (holy run-on sentence, batman!)

[bqbride]

Jun 26, 2012 10:15:09 GMT -5 fernane said:

Jun 26, 2012 8:41:41 GMT -5 @bqbride said:

It is not intolerance of their political view. It is refusing to support an organization that discriminates against gays and lesbians.

It's Moreso intolerant to not accept someone because of one specific view they differ on. We all have the same right to our political opinions, why hate or put down others just because they don't see every single thing the same way we do? If we could get beyond that we could actually see the areas we agree on and work together on some things. If only our leaders would take note of that!

This is the crux of our disagreement right here. You view GLBT rights as a "political view." I view is as a human and civil rights issue. You don't get to have a "political view" about whether or not someone is deserving of their human and civil rights.

ETA: You *shouldn't* get to have a political view. Unfortunately, right now, you do, which is precisely why the discrimination persists.

[chichimi]

At the location I was familiar with, the difference meant having your own little apartment for families or staying in a larger room with other same sex singles. In a homosexual couple situation, you are not separated, you just dont get the privacy of your own room. Even for a heterosexual couple in peril, the first option is probably not go get hitched so they can stay in the same room. They are offering help to all and while I understand the position of many, I dont think this warrants a boycott of the organization.

[2vermont]

Jun 26, 2012 17:57:07 GMT -5 llama said:

Jun 26, 2012 17:50:15 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

They at least have the option of being married. A same-sex couple has a 1/5 chance of that option currently.

I think there is a huge difference between straight couples who choose not to marry or who have not gotten married yet and same-sex couples that do not have the option to get married or who are married but the SA refuses to acknowledge their marriage. Straight people are free to decide when they want to marry with the knowledge of what benefits and responsibilities that marriage will carry with it.

But both groups are being judged the same way. I get that you and others see a difference, but if you look at it from their perspective they are treating both groups the same.

[llama]

This hair-splitting discussion about married vs. not aside, I think I have been ABUNDANTLY clear about the myriad of other issues that LGBT-identified people face when it comes to the Salvation Army, so while you may not agree that those other things warrant a boycott don't be so quick to assume we're making too big of a deal over nothing.

There are a lot of issues here.

Also: "you are not separated, you just don't get the privacy of your own room" is hilarious. Really?! That's all. Just discrimination. Just being treated unequally. Just not having any privacy for YOU AND YOUR SPOUSE. Just being told that your family doesn't count. But nothing to see here, folks.

[llama]

Jun 26, 2012 18:03:48 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Jun 26, 2012 17:57:07 GMT -5 llama said:

I think there is a huge difference between straight couples who choose not to marry or who have not gotten married yet and same-sex couples that do not have the option to get married or who are married but the SA refuses to acknowledge their marriage. Straight people are free to decide when they want to marry with the knowledge of what benefits and responsibilities that marriage will carry with it.

But both groups are being judged the same way. I get that you and others see a difference, but if you look at it from their perspective they are treating both groups the same.

It's not a perspective, it's my freaking LIFE. They are not being judged the same way. The Salvation Army has worked as an organization to stop same-sex couples from having the right to marry. They have been active in trying to continue the very discrimination you are using to say that they have no responsibility to treat all families equally within the walls of their shelters.

You also cannot just say that "treating everyone the same" is an acceptable solution when the way people are being treated is inherently discriminatory. They are not REQUIRED to treat same-sex couples differently, as the federal government currently is. They are merely refusing to do what so many other organizations, shelters included, have done for same-sex couples, which is to allow committed couples to be placed together in family units so that their families and children are not subjected to even more stress during an already stressful time. They are not doing this because they HAVE to treat all married couples a certain way, but because their religious beliefs lead them to promote discrimination against LGBT people.

I think discrimination against LGBT people is wrong, therefore I cannot support the Salvation Army.

[chichimi]

Jun 26, 2012 18:04:09 GMT -5 llama said:

This hair-splitting discussion about married vs. not aside, I think I have been ABUNDANTLY clear about the myriad of other issues that LGBT-identified people face when it comes to the Salvation Army, so while you may not agree that those other things warrant a boycott don't be so quick to assume we're making too big of a deal over nothing.

There are a lot of issues here.

Also: "you are not separated, you just don't get the privacy of your own room" is hilarious. Really?! That's all. Just discrimination. Just being treated unequally. Just not having any privacy for YOU AND YOUR SPOUSE. Just being told that your family doesn't count. But nothing to see here, folks.

I am going to continue to disagree about it actually being discrimination since it included homosexual and heterosexual couples.
That particular location was doing it even to married couples, actually. Priority was placed on families that had children.

[llama]

Jun 26, 2012 18:09:03 GMT -5 @chichimi said:

Jun 26, 2012 18:04:09 GMT -5 llama said:

This hair-splitting discussion about married vs. not aside, I think I have been ABUNDANTLY clear about the myriad of other issues that LGBT-identified people face when it comes to the Salvation Army, so while you may not agree that those other things warrant a boycott don't be so quick to assume we're making too big of a deal over nothing.

There are a lot of issues here.

Also: "you are not separated, you just don't get the privacy of your own room" is hilarious. Really?! That's all. Just discrimination. Just being treated unequally. Just not having any privacy for YOU AND YOUR SPOUSE. Just being told that your family doesn't count. But nothing to see here, folks.

I am going to continue to disagree about it actually being discrimination since it included homosexual and heterosexual couples.
That particular location was doing it even to married couples, actually. Priority was placed on families that had children.

What about same-sex couples with children? Those children are only allowed to reside with one of their parents in SA shelters. Do you think that is ok? This is not just about the couples, but about their families as well.

But I guess all you need to do to keep up your discrimination around here is a) advocate to keep bans on same-sex marriage so couples can't get married and b) point to those bans as the reason you treat certain couples differently from others inside your shelter.

In states like California where I live, there are couples who are married and they are also not allowed to reside together in SA shelters, even if they have children. That is discrimination. It is even discrimination under the strawperson argument you are putting up about "equal treatment" in your posts. Two couples. Both are married. One is recognized as married and the other is not. Discrimination.

[dev22]

Jun 26, 2012 18:03:48 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Jun 26, 2012 17:57:07 GMT -5 llama said:

I think there is a huge difference between straight couples who choose not to marry or who have not gotten married yet and same-sex couples that do not have the option to get married or who are married but the SA refuses to acknowledge their marriage. Straight people are free to decide when they want to marry with the knowledge of what benefits and responsibilities that marriage will carry with it.

But both groups are being judged the same way. I get that you and others see a difference, but if you look at it from their perspective they are treating both groups the same.

NO, they are not. Because legally married hetero couples can get a private room together if there is one availible. Legally married same-sex couples cannot. So even if you only look at the TINIEST sliver of the issue, it is still blatantly NOT the same.

[chichimi]

Jun 26, 2012 18:12:39 GMT -5 llama said:

Jun 26, 2012 18:09:03 GMT -5 @chichimi said:

I am going to continue to disagree about it actually being discrimination since it included homosexual and heterosexual couples.
That particular location was doing it even to married couples, actually. Priority was placed on families that had children.

What about same-sex couples with children? Those children are only allowed to reside with one of their parents in SA shelters. Do you think that is ok? This is not just about the couples, but about their families as well.

But I guess all you need to do to keep up your discrimination around here is a) advocate to keep bans on same-sex marriage so couples can't get married and b) point to those bans as the reason you treat certain couples differently from others inside your shelter.

In states like California where I live, there are couples who are married and they are also not allowed to reside together in SA shelters, even if they have children. That is discrimination. It is even discrimination under the strawperson argument you are putting up about "equal treatment" in your posts. Two couples. Both are married. One is recognized as married and the other is not. Discrimination.

I do not think that is ok and I have not read anything about discrimination of that kind. I also do not think its right to discriminate against legally married gay couples for the states that allow it. The location I knew, would allow an apartment to any family unit with children and they did not care about the adult composition. It could be a brother and sister and children. It made the most sense because the family unit had already agreed to stay together and that freed up more space in the singles area. Even with all of this considered, they are still providing a very valuable resource as a charity and if there are no other options, supporting them in helping people is better than not supporting anything. At the end of the day, people are getting shelter and that is more important to me than gay couples and unmarried couples not being able to shack up in a private room.

[2vermont]

Jun 26, 2012 18:13:45 GMT -5 dev22 said:

Jun 26, 2012 18:03:48 GMT -5 2vermont said:

But both groups are being judged the same way. I get that you and others see a difference, but if you look at it from their perspective they are treating both groups the same.

NO, they are not. Because legally married hetero couples can get a private room together if there is one availible. Legally married same-sex couples cannot. So even if you only look at the TINIEST sliver of the issue, it is still blatantly NOT the same.

Like I said it is not the same coming from your POV. COming from their POV (the POV of sin) it is the same. I'm not telling anyone to be okay with that. And I'm not telling anyone what they should do wrt boycotting or not boycotting.

Sorry...I should have known better than get involved in this discussion.

[dev22]

Jun 26, 2012 18:26:52 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Jun 26, 2012 18:13:45 GMT -5 dev22 said:

NO, they are not. Because legally married hetero couples can get a private room together if there is one availible. Legally married same-sex couples cannot. So even if you only look at the TINIEST sliver of the issue, it is still blatantly NOT the same.

Like I said it is not the same coming from your POV. COming from their POV (the POV of sin) it is the same. I'm not telling anyone to be okay with that. And I'm not telling anyone what they should do wrt boycotting or not boycotting.

Sorry...I should have known better than get involved in this discussion.

It is not the same coming from a legal point of view. Or the point of view of anyone that understands the definition of same. You cannot say it is not discrimination. You can't. They are a religious org and they are allowed to do what they want, and they can believe that same-sex married couples do not deserve to be roomed together, but you cannot play it off as being the same, and neither can they.

[llama]

Jun 26, 2012 18:22:57 GMT -5 @chichimi said:

Jun 26, 2012 18:12:39 GMT -5 llama said:

What about same-sex couples with children? Those children are only allowed to reside with one of their parents in SA shelters. Do you think that is ok? This is not just about the couples, but about their families as well.

But I guess all you need to do to keep up your discrimination around here is a) advocate to keep bans on same-sex marriage so couples can't get married and b) point to those bans as the reason you treat certain couples differently from others inside your shelter.

In states like California where I live, there are couples who are married and they are also not allowed to reside together in SA shelters, even if they have children. That is discrimination. It is even discrimination under the strawperson argument you are putting up about "equal treatment" in your posts. Two couples. Both are married. One is recognized as married and the other is not. Discrimination.

I do not think that is ok and I have not read anything about discrimination of that kind. I also do not think its right to discriminate against legally married gay couples for the states that allow it. The location I knew, would allow an apartment to any family unit with children and they did not care about the adult composition. It could be a brother and sister and children. It made the most sense because the family unit had already agreed to stay together and that freed up more space in the singles area. Even with all of this considered, they are still providing a very valuable resource as a charity and if there are no other options, supporting them in helping people is better than not supporting anything. At the end of the day, people are getting shelter and that is more important to me than gay couples and unmarried couples not being able to shack up in a private room.

You are free to believe that, and there may be certain situations in which I would even agree with you that getting people access to services is more important than the treatment of a small group of people where there are NO other options available, but I will continue to vehemently disagree that this sort of treatment is no big deal. You are making it sound like it's no big deal for couples in states without same-sex marriage or in cases that many of us have mentioned in which same-sex couples who are married are actually discriminated against. It's very well and fine for you as a straight person to decide that it doesn't matter to you what the SA's stance is on same-sex headed families. To other people it obviously matters more and for some it actually directly affects them.

The SA's official policy is not to recognize ANY same-sex headed families, children or no, in their shelters and other services. Individual locations (such as what you have described) may take a more intense or less intense approach to enforcing that. My main concern in donating to any charity is not only the services they provide, but also how they treat the people who seek their services. In the case of SA, I am not satisfied that the shelters are an accepting or welcoming environment for gay and trans people.

[2vermont]

Jun 26, 2012 18:31:39 GMT -5 dev22 said:

Jun 26, 2012 18:26:52 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Like I said it is not the same coming from your POV. COming from their POV (the POV of sin) it is the same. I'm not telling anyone to be okay with that. And I'm not telling anyone what they should do wrt boycotting or not boycotting.

Sorry...I should have known better than get involved in this discussion.

It is not the same coming from a legal point of view. Or the point of view of anyone that understands the definition of same. You cannot say it is not discrimination. You can't. They are a religious org and they are allowed to do what they want, and they can believe that same-sex married couples do not deserve to be roomed together, but you cannot play it off as being the same, and neither can they.

You know what? Don't tell me what I can and cannot say. And talk about condescending re: those who understand the meaning of same.

From the POV of sin, unmarried and married gay couples and unmarried hetero couples are the same. They are a Christian organization providing shelter for all. However, they are going to follow their beliefs when assigning rooms. You don;t have to like it or support it, but in their eyes they are treating everyone as they believe God would wish (ie. not encouraging sinful ways of life and avoiding near occasions of sin).

And I'm not writing this in judgment cuz I got my own sin I'm working on right now.