Post by RCA Webmaster on Jun 12, 2023 6:15:15 GMT -5
Decorum in debate is also guided by Robert’s Rules of Order, which states:
When a question is pending, a member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but [the member] must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can [the member] attack or question the motives of another member. The measure and not the member is the subject of the debate.
====================================
Proposal for 2023 ABM
No: 7 Title: Proposal to remove the word “monogamous” from the section entitled “Meeting Diversity” on page 43 of the Basic Text
Submitter: RCA Literature Committee’s Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity and Inclusion Type: Amendment to Fellowship Approved Literature.
Motion:
The Committee moves to edit the content of the Diversity Statement which appears on page 43 of the Basic Text. Ballot Proposal Seven is to delete the word “monogamous” from the first sentence of the Diversity Statement (deleted text shown in italic strikeout type):
“Meeting Diversity
“RCA is open to all committed adult couples seeking to create or restore a caring, committed, and intimatemonogamous relationship regardless of age, sexual orientation, gender identification, religious background, culture, race, class, national origin, physical or mental challenge, or political affiliation. The RCA fellowship actively supports valuing differences both within a coupleship and among couples of diverse backgrounds. In our coupleships and in our groups, we are committed to valuing our differences and surmounting the barriers to serenity. Diversity is important to our coupleships and to the RCA fellowship because each of us, being different, makes a richer contribution to the whole. Each individual meeting is autonomous except in matters affecting other groups and RCA as a whole. We encourage you to check the directory on our website, www.recovering-couples.org, and call or email the Group Contact Couple (GCC) listed before attending a new meeting.”
Submitter’s Rationale:
If passed this proposal would implement a recommendation made by the RCA Literature Committee’s Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity and Inclusion (“Committee”). The Committee was appointed at the direction of the RCA Board of Directors to look for ways to help make RCA more diverse, inclusive, and welcoming to all, including in its website, literature, and meetings. RCA’s rules require the approval of the fellowship to make changes to RCA’s Basic Text. That is why this ballot proposal has been submitted to you for your consideration..
“We believe that the inclusion of the word “monogamous” in the original version of the Diversity Statement is inconsistent with our Third Tradition and with the welcome statement which appears on the homepage of the RCA website. The Third Tradition states that the only requirement
for RCA membership is a desire to remain in a committed relationship. The welcome statement on the homepage states: “The only requirement for membership is the desire to remain committed to each other and to develop new intimacy.” The Basic Text states, at page 10: “We refuse no couple who wishes to recover.” Moreover, the RCA Meeting Posting Policy, approved on August 3, 2012, and amended on May 8, 2013, states that “we strongly encourage each RCA group to allow any couple desiring to remain in a committed relationship to attend its meetings.” The commentary to Tradition Four advises that “it is RCA’s intention to be open to all sincere couples . . . .” Nothing in the RCA Steps, Traditions or Concepts establishes monogamy as a requirement for membership.
“Many RCA members do pledge to remain in monogamous relationships. Nevertheless, many of those members have not succeeded in upholding that pledge. And yet, we do not exclude them from RCA membership. Indeed, from its origin, RCA has included members struggling with sexual addiction, who were not being monogamous; the Couples’ Stories in the Basic Text are replete with the experiences of such members. Patrick C., in his Founder’s Address at the 1991 RCA Convention, acknowledged his own recovery as a sex addict and early member of Sex Addicts Anonymous, as well as his own relationship with a sex addict at that time. He acknowledged his work with sexually addicted and incest families. Indeed, even though he was single at the time and in a relationship with a woman who was not monogamous, he was chosen to address he first RCA convention.
“The retention of the word “monogamous” excludes partners who are couples and who are in caring, committed, and intimate relationships with each other, but who, with the free and informed consent of both partners, have chosen not to incorporate monogamy as a requirement of their relationship. Such persons have sought recovery in RCA in the past but have been excluded because of their honest acknowledgment that their coupleship, by their mutual consent, is not monogamous. We believe that those persons fall within the qualification of our Third Tradition and are deserving of RCA recovery if they seek it.
“By deleting the word “monogamous,” RCA avoids a contentious issue. It eliminates an internal contradiction, both in the Meeting Posting Policy and in the Diversity Statement, which also states that “The RCA fellowship actively supports valuing differences both within a coupleship and among couples of diverse backgrounds.”
“At the same time, we wish to be clear that we are not asking that RCA endorse infidelity in those coupleships where both partners have pledged to a monogamous relationship. We are not asking that RCA endorse dishonesty in those coupleships. Rather, our sole intent is that RCA avoid excluding a group of couples who have a conception of coupleship which some might not consider as traditional, but which is based on mutual honesty and consent.
“There was a time in the not-so-distant past when interracial marriage and consenting same-sex relationships were considered criminal in many states. Thankfully, interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are now constitutionally protected throughout the United States and in many countries. Times change and conceptions of what is an “acceptable” relationship also change. Today, RCA counts many interracial and same sex couples among its members. In the spirit of inclusion and acknowledgment of changing attitudes, it may well be time for RCA to reconsider whether to remove language that excludes committed couples who choose not to be monogamous.”
This proposal reflects our roots in Alcoholics Anonymous, on which our program is based. As the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous states: “We do not want to be the arbiter of anyone’s sex conduct.” Rather, it is up to each couple to determine, by their mutual consent, what is or is not acceptable in their coupleship. This is consistent with the principle of autonomy reflected in the Fourth Tradition.
We believe that it is not RCA’s place to be the arbiter of anyone’s sex conduct. This is why we believe that the best policy is for the Diversity Statement to be silent on the subject of monogamy, neither endorsing nor opposing it. That is what this proposal accomplishes.
Some have voiced a concern that this proposal opens RCA membership to partnerships consisting of three or more persons. It does not. This proposal does not change the core message of our fellowship, which is that we are couples. Most couples presumably will continue to choose monogamy in their coupleships, and nothing in this proposal changes that.
We are a small fellowship relative to many of the more established Twelve Step recovery programs. If we are to grow and thrive, it is vital that we look at barriers to diversity and inclusion and that we remove those barriers in order to be as welcoming as possible. This proposal represents one small step in removing a barrier which has caused committed couples to be turned away from RCA in the past.
.
Board of Trustees’ Comments on Proposal Seven.
The Board of Trustees endorses (11-1) Ballot Proposal #7, with one minority opinion of opposition.
The Board's endorsement is based on the submitter's rationale, which is based on the report of the Literature Committee's Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity and Inclusion, including:
1. The existing language is contrary to our Third Tradition.
2. Removal of the existing language from the paragraph entitled "Meeting Diversity" does not change the core message of our fellowship.
3. We refuse No couple who wishes to recover.
4. The definition of the word "monogamous" is ambiguous.
The minority opinion objecting to the proposal adopts the submitters rationale in their proposal to the Board (Ballot Proposal #5).
Structure Committee’s Comments on Proposal Seven
Non-monogamous relationships tend to be disruptive of intimacy and trust in a coupleship. Even if some couples could maintain intimate non-monogamous relationships, if successful, they don’t need couple recovery, and if unsuccessful, RCA would have little to offer them. Our belief in intimate recovery does not allow for their lifestyle. This proposal would pull the rug out from under the recovery of the vast majority of RCA couples. An addict does not need to be given an excuse to rationalize why it is OK for some, but not him or her, to go outside the relationship.
Non monogamous relationships are an outside issue for the RCA program. We should follow the example of AA who did not allow their meetings to deviate from their primary purpose. E.g. recovering drug addicts weren’t permitted to be members of AA. That led to the formation of NA, a thriving 12 Step program
While we would not deny attendance to any couple who knowingly or unknowingly were in a non-monogamous relationship, it is understood that we would find the desire to be in a committed, monogamous relationship a requirement for membership.
0 Yays 6 Nays
When a question is pending, a member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but [the member] must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can [the member] attack or question the motives of another member. The measure and not the member is the subject of the debate.
====================================
Proposal for 2023 ABM
No: 7 Title: Proposal to remove the word “monogamous” from the section entitled “Meeting Diversity” on page 43 of the Basic Text
Submitter: RCA Literature Committee’s Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity and Inclusion Type: Amendment to Fellowship Approved Literature.
Motion:
The Committee moves to edit the content of the Diversity Statement which appears on page 43 of the Basic Text. Ballot Proposal Seven is to delete the word “monogamous” from the first sentence of the Diversity Statement (deleted text shown in italic strikeout type):
“Meeting Diversity
“RCA is open to all committed adult couples seeking to create or restore a caring, committed, and intimate
Submitter’s Rationale:
If passed this proposal would implement a recommendation made by the RCA Literature Committee’s Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity and Inclusion (“Committee”). The Committee was appointed at the direction of the RCA Board of Directors to look for ways to help make RCA more diverse, inclusive, and welcoming to all, including in its website, literature, and meetings. RCA’s rules require the approval of the fellowship to make changes to RCA’s Basic Text. That is why this ballot proposal has been submitted to you for your consideration..
“We believe that the inclusion of the word “monogamous” in the original version of the Diversity Statement is inconsistent with our Third Tradition and with the welcome statement which appears on the homepage of the RCA website. The Third Tradition states that the only requirement
for RCA membership is a desire to remain in a committed relationship. The welcome statement on the homepage states: “The only requirement for membership is the desire to remain committed to each other and to develop new intimacy.” The Basic Text states, at page 10: “We refuse no couple who wishes to recover.” Moreover, the RCA Meeting Posting Policy, approved on August 3, 2012, and amended on May 8, 2013, states that “we strongly encourage each RCA group to allow any couple desiring to remain in a committed relationship to attend its meetings.” The commentary to Tradition Four advises that “it is RCA’s intention to be open to all sincere couples . . . .” Nothing in the RCA Steps, Traditions or Concepts establishes monogamy as a requirement for membership.
“Many RCA members do pledge to remain in monogamous relationships. Nevertheless, many of those members have not succeeded in upholding that pledge. And yet, we do not exclude them from RCA membership. Indeed, from its origin, RCA has included members struggling with sexual addiction, who were not being monogamous; the Couples’ Stories in the Basic Text are replete with the experiences of such members. Patrick C., in his Founder’s Address at the 1991 RCA Convention, acknowledged his own recovery as a sex addict and early member of Sex Addicts Anonymous, as well as his own relationship with a sex addict at that time. He acknowledged his work with sexually addicted and incest families. Indeed, even though he was single at the time and in a relationship with a woman who was not monogamous, he was chosen to address he first RCA convention.
“The retention of the word “monogamous” excludes partners who are couples and who are in caring, committed, and intimate relationships with each other, but who, with the free and informed consent of both partners, have chosen not to incorporate monogamy as a requirement of their relationship. Such persons have sought recovery in RCA in the past but have been excluded because of their honest acknowledgment that their coupleship, by their mutual consent, is not monogamous. We believe that those persons fall within the qualification of our Third Tradition and are deserving of RCA recovery if they seek it.
“By deleting the word “monogamous,” RCA avoids a contentious issue. It eliminates an internal contradiction, both in the Meeting Posting Policy and in the Diversity Statement, which also states that “The RCA fellowship actively supports valuing differences both within a coupleship and among couples of diverse backgrounds.”
“At the same time, we wish to be clear that we are not asking that RCA endorse infidelity in those coupleships where both partners have pledged to a monogamous relationship. We are not asking that RCA endorse dishonesty in those coupleships. Rather, our sole intent is that RCA avoid excluding a group of couples who have a conception of coupleship which some might not consider as traditional, but which is based on mutual honesty and consent.
“There was a time in the not-so-distant past when interracial marriage and consenting same-sex relationships were considered criminal in many states. Thankfully, interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are now constitutionally protected throughout the United States and in many countries. Times change and conceptions of what is an “acceptable” relationship also change. Today, RCA counts many interracial and same sex couples among its members. In the spirit of inclusion and acknowledgment of changing attitudes, it may well be time for RCA to reconsider whether to remove language that excludes committed couples who choose not to be monogamous.”
This proposal reflects our roots in Alcoholics Anonymous, on which our program is based. As the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous states: “We do not want to be the arbiter of anyone’s sex conduct.” Rather, it is up to each couple to determine, by their mutual consent, what is or is not acceptable in their coupleship. This is consistent with the principle of autonomy reflected in the Fourth Tradition.
We believe that it is not RCA’s place to be the arbiter of anyone’s sex conduct. This is why we believe that the best policy is for the Diversity Statement to be silent on the subject of monogamy, neither endorsing nor opposing it. That is what this proposal accomplishes.
Some have voiced a concern that this proposal opens RCA membership to partnerships consisting of three or more persons. It does not. This proposal does not change the core message of our fellowship, which is that we are couples. Most couples presumably will continue to choose monogamy in their coupleships, and nothing in this proposal changes that.
We are a small fellowship relative to many of the more established Twelve Step recovery programs. If we are to grow and thrive, it is vital that we look at barriers to diversity and inclusion and that we remove those barriers in order to be as welcoming as possible. This proposal represents one small step in removing a barrier which has caused committed couples to be turned away from RCA in the past.
.
Board of Trustees’ Comments on Proposal Seven.
The Board of Trustees endorses (11-1) Ballot Proposal #7, with one minority opinion of opposition.
The Board's endorsement is based on the submitter's rationale, which is based on the report of the Literature Committee's Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity and Inclusion, including:
1. The existing language is contrary to our Third Tradition.
2. Removal of the existing language from the paragraph entitled "Meeting Diversity" does not change the core message of our fellowship.
3. We refuse No couple who wishes to recover.
4. The definition of the word "monogamous" is ambiguous.
The minority opinion objecting to the proposal adopts the submitters rationale in their proposal to the Board (Ballot Proposal #5).
Structure Committee’s Comments on Proposal Seven
Non-monogamous relationships tend to be disruptive of intimacy and trust in a coupleship. Even if some couples could maintain intimate non-monogamous relationships, if successful, they don’t need couple recovery, and if unsuccessful, RCA would have little to offer them. Our belief in intimate recovery does not allow for their lifestyle. This proposal would pull the rug out from under the recovery of the vast majority of RCA couples. An addict does not need to be given an excuse to rationalize why it is OK for some, but not him or her, to go outside the relationship.
Non monogamous relationships are an outside issue for the RCA program. We should follow the example of AA who did not allow their meetings to deviate from their primary purpose. E.g. recovering drug addicts weren’t permitted to be members of AA. That led to the formation of NA, a thriving 12 Step program
While we would not deny attendance to any couple who knowingly or unknowingly were in a non-monogamous relationship, it is understood that we would find the desire to be in a committed, monogamous relationship a requirement for membership.
0 Yays 6 Nays