In Cleveland on 9 July 1999, the Delegate Assembly and the Board of Trustees unanimously approved a clarification of SA’s sobriety definition. The approved statement of principle is as follows:

“In SA’s sobriety definition, the term ‘spouse’ refers to one’s partner in a marriage between a man and a woman.”

The action came at the end of more than a year of controversy over whether a clarification was necessary and whether the membership wanted a clarification. In many ways, this resolution was a surprise, and especially surprising was the unanimity of the decision. Here’s how it happened.

On the previous day, the Board of Trustees had approved and passed on to the delegates a three-paragraph proposal offered by the Southern California Area Intergroup and amended by Southwest Region delegates. In that proposal, the first paragraph — the one that generated the most disagreement — was a longer, more complex statement of clarification than the one (above) that eventually passed; the second and third paragraphs listed foundational principles of the Fellowship and proposed a mechanism for changing them if the membership should desire that in the future.

After discussion and debate, the proposal passed by a vote of six to two, with one abstention. One of the delegates on the minority side invoked the “Right of Appeal,” the right of a minority in a Twelve Step group conscience, even a very small minority, to ask for reconsideration of an issue. The other delegate on the minority side joined in that appeal. They said that they were not only against the idea of clarification but also against the particular language of the original proposal on the grounds that it was too complex and confusing. They offered to vote with the majority if the assembly would reconsider the original proposal and accept, as a substitute, a sentence that was shorter and simpler.

In response, delegates on the majority side voted for reconsideration. There followed a short break to allow the delegates and trustees (who were also present) to work on the substitute language; in the process, they decided to remove the second and third paragraphs of the original proposal as containing separate issues that could best be addressed separately at a later time. Then, as a gesture toward unity, the delegates invited the Board of Trustees to join them in voting, and nine delegates and seven trustees voted in favor of the new language, with none voting against it.

There was a sense among the delegates and the trustees that the best course was to settle this issue in the hope that we as a Fellowship can return to focus on the solution and not the problem. That is why the delegates invited the trustees to join in the vote, and that is why both bodies expressed unanimity.