PCUSA benefits for same-sex,
unmarried couples are debated
By Carmen Fowler, The Layman, July 6, 2010
MINNEAPOLIS — Not traditionally thought as the sexiest committee at a General Assembly meeting, the Board of Pension Committee No. 18 certainly has provocative business this year.
Items 18-01 and 18-06 from the presbyteries of Boston and New Castle seek to direct the BOP to extend benefits to church employees in same gender relationships. Presbyterians are not alone in exploring the issue of benefits for same-gender couples. The United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church USA and the Evangelical Lutheran Church already offer such benefits through their denominational benefit plans.
A representative from the Board of Pensions acknowledged that the increase in dues would be between .63 percent and 1 percent of effective salary of all employees in the plan. That includes all pastors who are mandated into the plan and church employees enrolled in the plan.
Overture advocates for same-sex benefits
Three overture advocates made the case for the extension of benefits to Presbyterian church employees in committed same-gender relationships.
- Signe Bell from the presbytery of New Castle cited the history of Presbyterian social witness as the basis of her argument. “Since 1977, the PCUSA and its predecessor denominations have called for protection against social and economic discrimination based upon a person’s sexual orientation. In 2004, the GA requested a feasibility study by the BOP on domestic partner benefits. In 2006, this study was received favorably. And most recently in 2008, the 218th GA passed a resolution to renew and strengthen the long-standing PCUSA commitment to equal protection under the law for lesbian and gay persons and of the right of same-gender persons to civil union and, thereby, to all of the benefits, privileges and responsibilities of civil union.” She argued that Items 18-01 and 18-06 simply ask to do just that. “As a church, we have a problem when a group of profit-making companies, including the likes of Wal-Mart, extend more benefits than we do.”
- David Wall said that his presbytery, New Brunswick, was committed to ending the “discriminatory practice of excluding one category of participating members’ spouses and their families” from the BOP plan. Wall joined the staff of Princeton Seminary in 1980 at the age of 25. As a part of his employment he was enrolled in the BOP. Wall describes himself as “legally not single” but “also not married.” Wall and his partner, Bob Houck, utilized New Jersey’s Civil Union law to become “civilized” or “unionized” in 2007. Wall said that everyone recognizes that status except his church.
- Arnold Rots, from the presbytery of Boston wants to see a phrase inserted insuring that gay pastors are covered too, even though the constitution prohibits such. Rots said, “The board indicates that it believes to have a mandate to enforce a particular article from the Book of Order. We respectfully disagree. Let me emphasize that it is not our intent to attack G-6.0106b with our overtures. But the PCUSA has entrusted the judgment on violations of the Constitution to its Permanent Judicial Commissions, not to the Board of Pensions. The board has stated that it does not meddle in polity issues and that is the way it should be.” He said the BOP “has no standing in the church’s judicial system and therefore no right to question a member’s standing in the church.”
Q&A
During a question-answer period, the representatives from the BOP responded to several commissioner queries:
Question: What is the definition of “domestic partnership?”
BOP Answer: The definition of “domestic partners” varies state to state and can be defined as heterosexual couples over 65 who are living together outside the bounds of marriage.
The BOP representative reminded commissioners that the BOP’s analysis of and cost estimates related to the items at hand were available to them on the General Assembly’s business Web site.
Question: How often do we pay for abortions and how is that the board of pensions can pay for abortions at any stage in the pregnancy when that’s not even legal?
BOP Answer: We cannot give you numbers but can assure you that the BOP only covers legal procedures.
(This committee now has a Commissioner’s Resolution before it related to abortion coverage: Item 18-12.)
Motion to Disapprove 18-01 with Comment
It was expected that the committee would choose to deal with items 18-01 and 18-06 as one. However, when asked, the committee moderator oderator did not help the commissioners achieve that end and so the motion made only addressed item 18-01.
The motion was to “disapprove with comment.” The proposed comment that would answer item 18-01 would read:
The PCUSA supports the availability of health care for all individuals. The 219th GA encourages sessions that wish to provide benefits for same-gender souses and domestic partners seek coverage through other available benefits plans rather than the BOP (G10-0102n.). The BOP is funded by constitutionally mandated dues from congregations (G14.0534) and as such they share an agreement that the plan will be administered consistently with the confessional and constitutional standards of the church in order to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church.
The moderator allowed a free-ranging open exchange of commissioners that did not welcome amendments or even a strict pro-con order to speakers. The conversation included the concern of one commissioner that the sessions are already struggling to make pension payments and these new benefits would be taxable income. Another commissioner sees this as “a justice issue for all people to be able to get benefits. So, I want to amend this to include couples over 65.” A YAAD chimed in, “I think the comment says we care for those who are like us but not those who are like us. If we make this comment, it’s like abstaining on the issue that we don’t see gay people as equal in Christ.”
Minister Commissioner Chas Jones from Mississippi said, “As a denomination we are bound by the Bible, we are bound by our confessions and we are bound to our Book of Order. Those of us who are ordained are bound to accept the Scriptures as God’s Word and we are bound to the Scriptures themselves. I would like to make sure we understand what the Scriptures actually say. I contend that most congregations hold to the Biblical parameters of sexual relationships. I believe that if we approve these overtures it will create a serious breach of the collective conscience of the church.”
A YAAD responded that the issue is not about Scripture but about justice. Another commissioner agreed, “It is just as inequitable and unjust to force every church to pay for benefits that they do not all support.” Yet another commissioner disagreed, “But it violates the 218th GA and the BOP’s own principles of equal service.”
The debate ended with three commissioners in succession who were in favor of the motion to disapprove. Their arguments were:
First, “passage of this validates what the Scriptures prohibit and it is more important for us to be aligned with the Scriptures than with the world.”
Second an attorney with experience in employee benefits, “the increased costs are not sustainable for churches and presbyteries that a
re selling property and laying off staff to pay the bills already outstanding. There are so many ancillary items of business before this assembly related to this subject that we should decide the matters of substance before deciding this. Additionally, I think monitoring the nature of committed same-sex relationships is untenable.”
Finally, elder Commissioner Doris Serrell from Grace Presbytery, who has been leading Committee 18 in singing, rose to make her appeal, “The word love came up and we do love, but we dislike behaviors. Love comes from people being human beings. Dislike comes from not being the norm. We are Presbyterians and we follow the Bible as best we can. We have a Book of Order that we follow it as best we can. Today, that Book of Order defines marriage as between one man and one woman.”
There was an immediate motion to end debate and the committee moved to a vote. The motion to disapprove 18-01 with comment was approved in a vote of 22 for, 18 against and 2 abstentions. A minority report is expected as is vigorous debate of this issue when it reaches plenary later in the week.
It was moved and seconded to answer 18-06 with the action on 18-01. The committee adjourned for the night without addressing the motion on the floor after it was disclosed that three separate substitute motions have been submitted in writing in relation to the motion on the floor.