Company says stance is too risky.
Last summer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company denied the West Adrian United Church of Christ in Michigan insurance because its denomination supports same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Wall Street Journal reporter M. P. McQueen writes,
"Based on national media reports, controversial stances such as those indicated in your application responses have resulted in property damage and the potential for increased litigation among churches that have chosen to publicly endorse these positions," Marci J. Fretz, a regional underwriter for Brotherhood Mutual -- one of the nation's largest insurers of religious institutions -- wrote in a letter to the church last summer.
McQueen writes that churches have sometimes been denied or have had coverage revoked because of specific acts of violence. "Some churches in the South reported cancellations after a wave of arson attacks in the mid-1990s." But this would be the first instance of the denial of a claim due to fears that a controversial stance would provoke a violent backlash.
Founded in 1917 as a mutual-aid organization by evangelical Mennonites, Brotherhood Mutual is now the largest provider of insurance to churches in the country. A spokesperson "didn't have any examples of violence attributable to a church's support for gay clergy or same-sex marriage," McQueen writes. She did note that disputes over gay marriage have led to church splits and resulted in costly lawsuits.
Michigan banned same-sex marriage in 2004. The church has not specifically endorsed the denomination's position on same-sex marriage and ordination of homosexuals. The article says that as long as insurance companies abide by non-discrimination and other laws, they are free to set their own guidelines for accepting or rejecting applications.
A couple of things to note: Brotherhood Mutual rejected the church's application not because of moral or religious opposition to the church's stance, but because the stance might increase risk to the insurer. So this is not precisely a religious freedom issue. One wonders if the company didn't want to do business with supporters of same-sex marriage and risk seemed a better explanation for its refusal. But are churches that support same-sex marriage really more prone to being victims of vandalism? The article says there is no evidence one way or the other. The story doesn't mention any other ways in which Brotherhood Mutual does business with supporters of same-sex marriage. Does it screen its investments of companies that offer benefits to partners of employees? Presumably, if/when same-sex marriage and homosexual ordination became less controversial, Brotherhood Mutual would then accept applications from churches that supported that stance.
Also, there is no lawsuit. West Adrian didn't sue Brotherhood Mutual over the denial, so the situation would set no legal precedent in regards to religious freedom. If same-sex marriage does gain national legal acceptance, there will probably be exceptions for clergy and churches to discriminate according to their religious teaching. The real test, however, will lie with for-profit companies like Brotherhood Mutual.
Posted by Rob Moll on January 8, 2008 11:02AM
Comments
UCCtruths.com posted the following on this:
Brotherhood Mutual story hits Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Four months later, the WSJ covers the story. There's very little new information here except that Brotherhood Mutual seems to be the only insurance carrier that applies an arbitrary level of risk to denominations (not the churches themselves) like the United Church of Christ that support gay marriage.
Ms. Thomas didn't have any examples of violence attributable to a church's support for gay clergy or same-sex marriage. She added, however, that disputes over gay marriage and clergy have led to splits in other churches and congregations, resulting in costly litigation.
Ms. Thomas said she wasn't aware of other churches Brotherhood Mutual turned down because of positions on gay clergy or marriage, but the insurer has rejected churches because of other controversial positions. "Advocating violence, militia groups, we have turned down for that. Picketing at military funerals, making statements against religious leaders of other faiths...are some of the reasons," she said.
I spoke out against Brotherhood Mutual back in September when this story broke and sent an email to the President of the insurance company. Some people may want to twist this story into a pro-gay/anti-gay thing, but this has more depth than that - this is about arbitrary discrimination.
As I stated back in September, the logic that a stated position by a separate, national body would automatically disqualify a local church from insurance coverage because the stand is controversial is absurd. It's also absurd that Mitzi L. Thomas (Assistant Vice President–Corporate Communications for Brotherhood Mutual) would put the gay marriage issue on par with "advocating violence, militia groups" especially when there doesn't seem to be any connection at all to increased risk and she doesn't provide examples of risk. I'd like to think Thomas might be read the article this morning and realize just how dumb she sounds.
Posted by: Drew at January 8, 2008
There was a time when "moral risks" were a basic part of underwriting. For example, lifestlyes that increased risk of mortality or morbility would result in a denial for life insurance. Such lifestyles naturally included homosexual practices. Today homosexual practices have become a "protected" lifestyle. Some insurance companies would deny coverage to one of our leading presidential hopefuls for his ammitted past use of marijuana. Drug use is not "politically correct". Sodomy is.
Posted by: David Ogletree at January 9, 2008
You sound bitter somehow, David. In any case, being gay is more than mere "homosexual practices." It about people and the human need for community, identity, love and friendship.
I went to dinner last night with some gay friends. We talked about traveling in Eastern Europe. South America and Africa, aging parents, cameras, childhood memories in Brazil and the northern Great Plains, the weather, losing weight, gay discrimination and tolerance in Lima, Peru and Buenos Aires, Argentina, poverty in Ecuador, compared local restaurant prices, and talked about back surgery. No mention of "homosexual practices."
"Sodomy" is just something people can do, so some people will do it. Support comprehensive sex ed to minimize unwanted consequences of sexual activities, as if it's something people can do, somebody will do it. Why keep people dangerously ignorant?
Politically correctness...what's wrong with being consciously considerate and forgiving of others? When PC goes wrong, and it can go wrong, it's actually about being smarmy and condescending. Otherwise, PC is the Golden Rule in practice, right? Would that I consistently practice what I preach.
Posted by: Gregory Peterson at January 10, 2008
Political Correctness is not the practice of the Golden Rule. Political Correctness is merely the liberal secular version of the Taliban.
Posted by: George Williams at March 1, 2008
Post a comment