(CNSNews.com) - ATT's "sexual preference or orientation" clause prevailed once more as shareholders voted Wednesday in an overwhelming majority to keep the phrase in the company's corporate non-discrimination policy.

It was the third time the clause has faced scrutiny but survived a shareholder vote. At the company's annual meeting in Savannah, Ga., 96.7 percent of shareholders voted against eliminating the language, while 3.3 percent voted in favor, according to a statement on ATT's Internet website.

Spearheading the campaign to change the ATT policy were Chris Stefan and Tom Strobhar of Pro-Vita Advisors, a non-profit organization addressing corporate moral issues. The two had worked for the past three years for the removal of the "sexual preference or orientation" clause.

Stefan and Strobhar had helped two anonymous ATT shareholders from Ohio file all three proposals.

The shareholders who filed the most recent proposal were identified by ATT as Steve J. Stefan and Marcia A. Stefan, the parents of Chris Stefan.

Strobhar argued the clause could encompass a wide range of sexual activities, including sex with children and animals, which are illegal. "I just don't think there needs to be that kind of phrase in the employment policy," Strobhar said.

Past proposals to remove the "sexual preference or orientation" language in ATT's policy have failed, but not by such a large margin. At the company's 2002 meeting, the proposal attracted 12 percent support - nearly four times the support it received at Wednesday's meeting.

Before the shareholder vote was held, Strobhar said he doubted the newest proposal would pass but added that he thinks it's important to question the company and force ATT to speak publicly about the issue.

In response to the shareholders' proposal, the ATT board was opposed to its passage and had recommended shareholders to vote against it.

The board said it believed that if the "sexual orientation" clause were eliminated, it would "inappropriately signal a departure from [ATT's] historic policy, wrongly suggest tolerance for discrimination based on sexual orientation, negatively impact our workplace environment and would not be in the best interests of ATT."

The Ohio shareholders and their allies at Pro-Vita Advisors opposed the clause because it has no clear legal definition, said Strobhar.

ATT decided to place "sexual preference or orientation" in its Equal Opportunity Statement because of its long-standing policy against non-discrimination in the workplace, said company spokeswoman Cindy Neale.

Although ATT has a policy against discrimination based on sexual orientation, Neale said the company's domestic partnership benefit policy applies only to homosexual couples and not non-married heterosexual couples.

Strobhar said this makes the sexual preference clause contradictory, because even though it seeks to prevent discrimination, the company is discriminating against heterosexual couples by virtue of excluding them from receiving corporate benefits.

Strobhar said he doesn't think either homosexual or heterosexual unmarried couples should receive domestic partner benefits.

"Be it homosexual or heterosexual, we don't think most employees are interested in paying higher health care costs just to pay benefits to the sexual partners of unmarried employees," Strobhar said.

Stefan added that ATT should focus on supporting Christian-based family values. "ATT has led the way to equate homosexual unions with traditional Christian marriage, and we don't see it as being appropriate for a company to be involved with that," Stefan said.

But Neale said the company decided to include benefits for homosexual couples because the company wanted to attract talented employees. "It's one of the business's many ways to obtain and keep employees," she said.

E-mail a news tip to Danielle Gillespie.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.