Salvation Army In Chicago Reports 13 Percent Decline In Donations; Anti-Gay Stance At Root?

Across the Chicago area, the ubiquitous red kettles are a little lighter than they were this time last year.

The Salvation Army reports that its Chicago-area division has brought in $4.1 million thus far through its Red Kettle Campaign, down from $4.6 million by this time last year. That marks a 13 percent decrease.

Meanwhile, food requests at the Salvation Army are up somewhere between 200 and 400 percent in the Chicago area, according to a Chicago Sun-Times report. Roughly 70 percent of the Salvation Army's funding comes from the red kettles.

Dee McKinsey, a spokeswoman for the charity, told the Associated Press that recent bad weather in the area, coupled with an economic downturn, are responsible for the drop-offs.

But others suggest that greater public awareness of some of the Salvation Army's policies could be cutting into the charity's take this winter.

"You can say you are the nicest Christian organization in the world, but if you are sending a message that some people are more equal than others--that is not acceptable," activist Andy Thayer told Chicagoist in November.

Thayer, the co-founder of the Gay Liberation Network, is referring to the Salvation Army's policies toward homosexuality. "Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex," the Salvation Army's website reads. While the group "does not consider same-sex orientation blameworthy in itself," it suggests that gay followers "embrace celibacy as a way of life."

The message cites Leviticus 18:22, among other passages, which in the King James Bible refers to homosexuality as "abomination."

"The Salvation Army is in the closet about these policies," Thayer told Chicagoist.

A spokesperson from the organization replied to Chicagoist, saying the positions are "intended for our church members or those who are interested in our church," and that the charity provides its services to all those in need, gay and straight alike.

Still, a column in last year's San Francisco Chronicle pointed out that an active social media campaign opposing the Salvation Army's anti-gay policies drove donations down sharply that year, in San Francisco and nation-wide.

If the recent numbers from Chicago are any indication, grass-roots efforts like Thayer's and countless others may be having a similar impact in 2010.

Thayer suggests a holiday donation to non-discriminating organizations like the Howard Brown Health Center, one of the nation's largest LGBT healthcare centers, or the American Red Cross, which has fought for years against a ban on gay men giving blood.

Comments

[PICASS0]

12:00 PM on 12/20/2010

A friend of mine who is gay is currently working for them as a bell ringer. I must tell her this, she has a week and a half left.

[Daayyummmboi]

11:29 AM on 12/20/2010

I'd rather burn my wallet in the backyard then donate to the Salvation Army!
I can't separate their claim of stated policy from their actions no more than I could separate a fish from it's smell. I find the justification weak for me to even consider placing my wallet in their hands. There are many other organizations to which the issue of orientation is not even a thought.

[Benjo333]

11:35 PM on 12/19/2010

Its just as easy to pass the bucket by and find an organizations that suits ones values...I stopped giving to them years ago.

I tend not to frequent places that allow solicitation...

[Debbie338]

02:26 PM on 12/17/2010

I have always donated to these people. I knew they were Christian, but I guess I never thought about them having a formal policy condemning homosexuality. I won't be giving to them anymore.

[egoistetx]

09:33 AM on 12/17/2010

Gee. It could be, you know, the crappy economy, couldn't it? It could even be smear campaign regarding Twilight and Harry Potter toys that was in all the headlines last week.

[EmmaDarian]

10:20 AM on 12/17/2010

Smear campaign=truthful reporting. Do you deny that the Salvation Army was throwing away these donated toys? If so, why shouldn't that be news? If there's nothing shameful in it, reporting it shouldn't be an issue. The Salvation Army should have been happy that the media reported it.

The economy could be one factor, perhaps a big one, but you can't deny that a lot of people have stopped giving to Salvation Army because of their anti-gay bias. How much of an impact it is having, it's hard to know, but it is undoubtedly having some impact.

[critical thinking rules]

12:41 PM on 12/17/2010

Of course it could be the crappy economy. My main problem with this article was that it couldn't prove definitive causality. However, there's no denying that the obsession with superstitious gibberish and homophobic nonsense are definitely possible causes of a reduction in donations and these possible causes need to be addressed and discussed. I call it democracy.

[eve mahar]

04:43 PM on 12/16/2010

I don't know why all of the homophobes keep whining about us not contributing to the Salvation Army or other discriminating organizations. We can, and do, support other charities and organizations that do NOT discriminate, including local food banks, children's charities and GLBTQ community centers. Why would we support a charity that preaches homophobia and discriminates against us? It's our money and we can choose how it's used.

[critical thinking rules]

04:43 PM on 12/16/2010

This, my friends, is why the right-wing insistence that social problems should be handled by charitable organizations instead of government via taxes will never work.

[capercaper]

04:51 PM on 12/16/2010

And this, my friends, is precisely why it will work.

[sturzl]

04:10 PM on 12/16/2010

From their website: "For this reason such practices, if unrenounced, render a person ineligible for Salvation Army soldiership, in the same way that unrenounced heterosexual misconduct is a bar to soldiership."

So monogamous relations with your same-sex spouse (even in places where we can marry) would be seen on par with adultery and promiscuity as sexual misconduct and would not be able to be a part of their “soldiership”. Yet many of you on this thread would have us believe that they would have no problem hiring us? Get real. The SA does do many good things, but discrimination against gays is not one of them.

[EmmaDarian]

04:45 PM on 12/16/2010

They even reference the Leviticus verse that states men that have sex with other men should be put to death as justification for their position. I notice they don't quote other verses of Leviticus that would call for them not to employ those who eat shellfish, or that people should also be killed for working on the wrong day of the week. Add to that their efforts against gay rights, and they aren't deserving of my time or money, especially when there are so many charities that do the same work but don't practice bigotry.

[EmmaDarian]

04:49 PM on 12/16/2010

Oh, and they also quote Paul, but I notice they don't preach against women speaking in church or refuse to hire women who aren't silent in church or who might not be as subservient to their husbands as Paul says they must be.

[chaapai]

01:37 PM on 12/16/2010

I am a gay man. I used to carry change to give to the SA pot every time I passed one. But, I can no longer give money to them or any xian agency.

I am not good enough for equality? To marry, to serve openly, to adopt.... then I sure as heck am not good enough to take my hard earned money from.

[capercaper]

01:40 PM on 12/16/2010

Are you not good enough to support an agency that helps many fellow lgbt people in need of the social services they provide?

[chaapai]

01:47 PM on 12/16/2010

can you give me an example? I would love to rethink my decision. If you can help me understand I would be glad to go back to donating. What LGBT causes do you speak of? Or give me a link to a story or article that I can read. I tried to find some good. But I got nothing. But I am not very tech savvy. So any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[EmmaDarian]

02:45 PM on 12/16/2010

Maybe like many of us chaapai is good enough to support an agency that helps people just as the Salvation Army does, but is not anti-gay.

[EmmaDarian]

01:43 PM on 12/16/2010

I don't give to any religious charities or any that are bigoted. There's no need when there are so many charities out there doing the same work without the religious conflicts and bigotry. Some people here seem to think that the Salvation Army is the only charity out there, but it's dead easy to find local charities and check them out to make sure they've got a good rating.

[critical thinking rules]

04:46 PM on 12/16/2010

Exactly! Why are so many of these posters acting like there are no other charities? Sad to say, but there is way more than enough need and desperation to go around without giving money to organizations that support ignorance and bigotry.

[Blackorpheus]

01:31 PM on 12/16/2010

Here's a thought: Let's all be celibate and support the Salvation Army.

[Spiral Architect]

10:50 AM on 12/16/2010

What nonsense. The only thing hurting their donations is Obama, and his policies which are stifiling our economy, keeping Americans out of work, which results in fewer donations.

[Peter Advent]

02:52 AM on 12/16/2010

I got news for You Andy Thayer, tens of millions of American think homosexuality is immoral, whether they go to church on Sunday or not. So that's not an "anti-gay bias", that's a moral judgment that people make on the basis of whatever ethical,moral or religious values they endorse.

So you want to punish them for their beliefs, in spite of all their good works, go right ahead, I never saw the Harold Brown Health Center feed and clothe people who were just burnt out of their homes, like the Salvation Army does when needed.

[critical thinking rules]

04:22 PM on 12/16/2010

The idea that homosexuality is immoral in the very DEFINITION of anti-gay bias. What in the world else could you possibly think the phrase anti-gay bias means?

[eve mahar]

04:48 PM on 12/16/2010

that moral judgment IS anti-gay. Just because your religion or beliefs teach that it is wrong, doesn't make it so. Especially when it comes to equality and civil rights. I'm not blabbering about how immoral I think those religious zealots are, or asking for their rights to be denied, so they should give me the same respect and zip it.

[alley boy]

05:59 PM on 12/16/2010

In your moral relativistic world, homosexuality is merely a choice whereas for many millions it is degraded conduct and moral turpitude, hence the resistance to such things as "gay marriage." Americans look at the abandonment of traditional values and norms in Europe, where the decline of the importance of family has to depopulation and don't wish to see this repeated here.

[usorthem3]

01:01 AM on 12/16/2010

I just say that I am gay and keep walking on by. I donate to charities, just never to them.

[Spiral Architect]

10:51 AM on 12/16/2010

I'm sure you're not voting for Obama either in 2012, since he does not support g@y marr.ia.g.e.?

[usorthem3]

11:41 AM on 12/16/2010

And what does how I vote in the 2012 election of a President have anything to do with donations to the Salvation Army? Did I mention politics and not remember it?

[keeponknockin20]

11:06 PM on 12/15/2010

Please do not just believe what you read on blog pages, or biased comments. Look and do your own research, come to your own conclusion based on your findings. People can say anything they want, no matter how wrong or hateful it may be. Look to major news organizations and see what is said, and look to see why the Salvation Army did what they did. Read the Salvation Army position statement yourself.

People make mistakes and you may not always agree completely with any church/ organization, but please do not make a swiping judgment from one persons comment.

[bgofca]

02:07 AM on 12/16/2010

i have read how they stand so the answer is no to people who spread hate.

[Spiral Architect]

10:52 AM on 12/16/2010

Like this website?

[baseballmom]

05:44 PM on 12/17/2010

SA does not spread hate. If you read their policy statement you'll see that they do not discriminate against anyone in the services they provide. Anyone, including gays, is welcome to attend their worship. The only thing a gay person cannot do is become a soldier in the Salvation Army. Tell me, how many of the folks who are upset here would really want to do that?

[EmmaDarian]

05:35 AM on 12/16/2010

I've done all that research and that's why I support charities that do the same work as the Salvation Army, but not the Salvation Army. Charities that provide food, clothing, rehabilitation, and so much more, but not any anti-gay sentiment or actions. Some of you seem not to realize that there are many, many such charities.

[ModerateVoiceofReason]

07:15 PM on 12/15/2010

I have yet to hear of the SA picketing an abortion clinic or a courthouse that performs same-sex civil ceremonies.
The few people I know who have gone to the SA for food and clothes do mention that they make them listen to a brief sermon about Jesus. However, they don't mention that the SA General then told them to leave the premises if they aren't Xian, practice homosexuality or are single parents.
I am an athiest and I completely disagree with pretty much everything the SA stands for. Nevertheless there is an SA run soup kitchen that I pass on my way to work and I see it filled with people getting food and clothing. I don't mind giving them a dollar or two during Xmas.

[EmmaDarian]

07:50 PM on 12/15/2010

I wonder if that soup kitchen is one they threatened to close over gay rights legislation. Then, they put politics and their anti-gay position ahead of feeding the hungry.

I'm glad there are many, many charities that do as much good without any negativity toward GLBT people.

[capercaper]

12:29 PM on 12/16/2010

June 28, 2004:

Municipal employees were given domestic partner benefits beginning in 1998, but currently companies or organizations that have contracts to provide services for New York are not required to abide by the same rules.

The legislation applies to religious organizations and institutions, some of which oppose gay and lesbian relationships. Groups like the Salvation Army and the New York Archdiocese opposed the bill and said they may stop providing benefits to employees altogether or stop providing services.


Mayor Bloomberg [successfully] vetoed the bill because he said that the city should not use the contracting process to promote social policies, and a handful of City Council members agreed.

"It is ironic that some people who usually fight to keep God out of government, today have no problem using government to regulate God," said Peter Vallone, Jr. who voted with the mayor.

But supporters argued that the legislation provides an exception for religious groups that allows them to give benefits - not by virtue of domestic partnership - but because family members live in the same household.

The council needed "yes" votes from two-thirds of the 51 members to override the mayor's veto; 41 members voted for the bill, 4 voted against it, and 3 abstained. (Simcha Felder, Dennis Gallagher, James Oddo, and Peter Vallone, Jr. cast "No" votes. Michael Nelson, Allan Jennings and Joseph Addabbo Jr. abstained.)

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/searchlight/20040628/203/1261

[bgofca]

02:10 AM on 12/16/2010

they threatened closing a soup kitchen due to their anti gay stance.
they also throw away donated toys that have anything magical to them such as harry potter stuff. but of course they keep and distribute the guns.
i just say no to the sa.
there are lots of other organizations that really teach love and don't discriminate.

[capercaper]

12:32 PM on 12/16/2010

June 28, 2004:

[NYC] Mayor Bloomberg [successfu­lly] vetoed the [equal benefits] bill because he said that the city should not use the contractin­g process to promote social policies, and a handful of City Council members agreed.

"It is ironic that some people who usually fight to keep God out of government­, today have no problem using government to regulate God," said Peter Vallone, Jr. who voted with the mayor.

[EmmaDarian]

01:05 PM on 12/16/2010

Yep, for all the good they do, in this case, they were willing to let people go hungry, or use hungry people to try to get what they wanted (and was anti-gay). I'm much happier giving to organizations who won't face such conflicts and can just help people without threatening to withhold the help for their own ends.