What Illinois Governor Pat Quinn needs to say to Catholic adoption agencies

[David Gill]

Last month, a new law went into effect in Illinois that legalized civil-unions between same sex partners and granted them the same legal rights as ‘traditional’ marriages. The bill lists some of the legal protections these new couples will have, including the same right to adoption services that married couples currently have. However, some Catholic adoption organizations are still refusing to help same-sex couples and are in violation of the new law. This has forced Governor Pat Quinn to not renew the state foster care and adoption contracts held by some these groups, and they have struck back with lawsuits saying that adoption is “part of church’s mission,” and they should be exempt from the provision.

Canceling these contracts was the right thing for the governor to do, but the next time he’s asked about these groups he should have a solid response prepared. The last time he responded to a question about these groups he said, “They made a choice... they have a law in Illinois. It’s the civil unions law. I signed it into law. We’re not going back.”

Instead, I think he should say something more similar to this...

http://www.politicsundelivered.com/2011/07/what-illinois-governor-pat-quinn-needs.html">Click here for the full remarks

[seeviewonder]

1. I've read several articles on this in papers from around the state.

Seems to me that the majority of the opinion in the state sides with the Catholic foster people rather than the law. I read an editorial in the Journal Gazette (Mattoon) a few days ago and it seems like the editors there (as usual) are siding with the fundies as well.

[seeviewonder]

2. Here is a link to an editorial on the issue from the News -Gazette

in Champaign: http://www.news-gazette.com/opinions/editorials/2011-07-15/mistake-bar-religious-group.html

[David Gill]

3. I don't know

The point of that article is that, by Quinn refusing to allow church groups to discriminate against same-sex couples, fewer children will be taken care of. I'm not sure. That's a question for social scientists and definitely has a quantifiable answer. It could also open the door for new groups- ones that don't discriminate. But beyond these questions, I don't think Quinn has a choice in the matter. The law is what it is, and he would be breaking it by supporting groups that discriminate against new civil-unions.

Above all else, the Catholic church ought to be ashamed of itself. They should reverse this policy because it's the right thing to do. If they absolutely refuse, perhaps a new law can be written that stipulates that only when foster homes are overcrowded and at maximum capacity can they go to these groups.

[seeviewonder]

4. I agree with you 100%.

The Catholics should be ashamed that they are openly discriminating against what could be a great home for a child. In fact, it very well could be that the home is a better home than a home with a single parent or with a straight couple. Bigotry has no place here and it is only fair to use the law to refuse placement power to the Catholics here.

[NMMNG]

6. Other agencies are already stepping in

The children are getting services and care. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-foster-care-director-profile-20110705,0,1793739.story">Secular agencies are taking over where Catholic bigots are pulling out. The kids are going to be fine--probably even better off since they're not being cared for people with bigoted agendas.

[NMMNG]

5. Excellent statement

Religious freedom means you're allowed to believe and worship as your convictions demand. Sadly some have taken it to mean they should be allowed to do and say whatever they please, and to be above the law, by merely citing their "religious beliefs". Then they turn around and pretend they're being persecuted if they're told that's not how it works.

[seeviewonder]

7. When a religion or its leaders take the leap from preaching

to invading politics, something needs to be changed fundamentally (no pun intended). Religious institutions and their "charities" receive so much in the way of tax-free benefits that it must be considered they should not be involved in politics. Their realm should exist no further than the pulpit. It is as simple as that. Perhaps some day there will be a law on the books that makes it so that the religious organization loses tax exempt status if it is found that they are mingling in politics at all. I bet many preachers, pastors, and whole organizations would then change their tune and hopefully keep their mouths shut for good.

[David Gill]

8. I will say this:

I think it's better for first amendment freedoms to be interpreted too broadly than too narrowly. I agree with your statement on churches and tax exemption. We just have to be sure not to do it in a discriminatory way.