10.10.13 Editor’s Desk

When a religious organization does something anti-gay, one of my favorite arguments against said attack references the time and money wasted on bigotry rather than helping those less fortunate. After all, isn’t that what most churches and institutions practicing religion preach?

So much of the money used to rent airplanes protesting Gay Days or purchasing newspaper ads to defeat marriage equality amendments could help feed a hungry family or provide shelter and clothing to a young person struggling to find his or her way in the world.

But when an organization inarguably does those good deeds for more than a century and then reveals that it doesn’t support marriage equality, how should we react? The Salvation Army helps millions of people worldwide, whether it provides shelter after a natural disaster, or a roof and some food over someone who has fallen on hard times.

The good the 148-year-old organization does is invaluable and affects people-positively-in communities all over the world. There’s no denying that.

HGTV reality star David Bromstad has come under fire recently for hosting a fundraising event for the 148-year-old organization. He argues that the Salvation Army has made strides toward acceptance, while those protesting his support say the religious muck surrounding the group has made it an enemy of LGBT equality.

While we shouldn’t expect to see donation trucks with the familiar red shield driving along any Gay Pride routes any time soon, the organization is not overtly hateful toward us.

It’s true the organization does not support marriage equality. It is also true that a spokesperson for the Salvation Army referenced scripture that condemns parents of gays to death-something he later revisited and explained the text meant “spiritual death.” If the interpretation of dusty, man-written rules of controlling the populace are important to you, I guess that could seem important.

From the moment that spokesman shared his thoughts, the organization became a target of boycott by the LGBT community and its allies. In fact, last year Watermark participated by encouraging readers to clip “Queer Money” out of the paper and place it into kettles as a way to remind the non-profit that we didn’t appreciate anti-gay rhetoric.

But is all of this really necessary?

The Salvation Army has not, to my knowledge, ever killed an LGBT person or a parent of a member of our community. It has not refused to allow LGBTs to shop in its thrift stores or asked any gay donor of items to keep on driving past its donation bins.

It has limited same-sex sexual activity in its shelters-but it does the same for heterosexual couples. That’s a good policy. Last I checked shelters are not bathhouses.

The Salvation Army has not actively campaigned against equality or shifted its monies used for helping others to endorse anti-gay candidates or to fuel Proposition 8-style legislation to prevent us from loving whomever we choose.
What it has done is help millions of needy individuals around the globe for a century and a half, often providing shelter, clothing, and food to people in their most desperate times of need. Because a phrase in the organization’s mission statement quotes ancient text that can be interpreted a number of ways, those of us more fortunate should refuse to help?

It doesn’t make sense. There are many LGBT-inclusive charitable organizations out there, and if you prefer to donate to those groups, I encourage you to do so.

But this is not a Chick-fil-a situation. That fast food restaurant is a for-profit entity that actively donated money toward anti-LGBT causes. It’s president’s hateful anti-marriage equality posts fueled inquiries into the chain’s politics and many LGBTs and supporters, rightfully, still refuse to even catch a whiff of a waffle fry.

I count myself among them.

Whether we like it or not, the holidays are directly in front of us. Christmas trees are next to spooky Halloween masks at discount stores and soon bell ringers will encourage you to drop spare change into the familiar red kettle.

Think about those benefiting from the money before you flat-out refuse to help someone in need. After all, it’s not about the private, personal views of the charitable person, it’s about the people who receive the much-needed help.