Double-minded action on same-sex benefits
By Carmen Fowler, The Layman, July 7, 2010
The General Assembly committee dealing with business related to the Board of Pensions of the Presbyterian Church USA is advising the assembly to approve an overture urging the BOP to extend benefit coverage to same-gender couples.
Item 18-06 addresses the same subject matter dispensed with by the committee in its recommendation to disapprove item 18-01. However, their action on 18-06 sends the matter to plenary with the committee’s endorsement.
A sampling of the Q&A with the BOP
Q: Can you tell us about the estimated 1 per cent increase in dues?
A: The 1 per cent increase from 31.5 per cent to 32.5 per cent of total effective salary is the limit for this item of business. There is potential for additional increases from the board but none are expected this year.
Q: Whose dues will increase?
A: The dues increase would apply to every position.
Q: Who would benefit?
A: The additional benefits would be limited to non-ordained personnel in committed same-sex relationships.
Q: What if we want to extend benefits to everyone, including clergy?
A: If benefits were to be extended to ordained personnel in same-gender relationships, the dues increase would be higher than the 1% under current discussion. At this point in time, the denomination’s constitution does not allow for such a benefit extension.
Q: What does the BOP intend to do since we can only urge them, not require them, to do anything?
A: If the assembly approves this item, the board will implement the changes effective Jan. 1, 2012.
The substance of the debate
The substance of debate centered around the subjects of:
- The reality that some congregations already utilize benefit programs other than BOP.
- The end-run being attempted around our constitutional standards.
- Whether or not this is a debate about sexuality, conscience, justice or something else.
- The debate of whether there is an equivalency of marriage to same-sex relationships.
- Those who view homosexuality as sin were challenged to consider the reality that we already provide benefits to people who drink, are gluttons, and make other unhealthy lifestyle choices.
- Those who view coverage as a right for all were challenged to consider that healthcare coverage is not a right but a benefit.
After many failed attempts to dispense with 18-06, the committee eventually voted 24-19-2 to answer it with the BOP comments and implementation plan.
Providing for Relief of Conscious
Q: What would it take to include a relief of conscience?
A: We would have to study where that percentage of the dues would then flow. Relief of conscience in relationship to the termination of pregnancy now flows to adoption services. A relief of conscience is not a way of not paying the dues increase.
Q: What would it take to cover ordained personnel in same-sex committed relationship?
A: Again, we would have to study what additional dues increase would be required to accommodate a further expansion of benefits.
A senior member of the BOP staff said off the record that the prospects of identifying a means of providing relief of conscience on this issue are unlikely.
That did not stop commissioners from trying. Eventually a motion to add a comment that “the BOP be highly urged to provide relief of conscience, to be implemented simultaneously with these actions, for those congregations for whom these action provide a moral dilemma” was adopted by a vote of 39-4.
It was noted that if the dollars are taken out of the 1 per cent they’re probably going to have to raise dues to cover the difference. The BOP affirmed that any diversion of resources for relief of conscience would potentially affect the previously discussed 1 per cent cap on dues increases. It would depend on which of the plans were ultimately affected by the relief of conscience diversion of funds. If only the medical dues, death and disability plans were affected, the BOP could increase those dues without assembly action. If an increase in the pension portion of the plan is required, that would require assembly action.
Q: Can the BOP do that?
A: BOP would be committed to study but could not commit today to implement something on Jan. 1, 2012, that they have not yet even studied. The BOP would do everything it could to find a program that would work.