Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: “The Next 89 WLS Talk Star”
Next Post: Illinois Family Institute weighs in on Dillard position
Posted in:
* From the Catholic Conference of Illinois regarding a post from earlier today…
Rich,
You posted today about Kirk Dillard’s comment on a 2012 candidate questionnaire regarding the civil unions law: “It is a litigious nightmare!” You then disagreed with Dillard’s comment by saying “it hasn’t really turned out that way.”
We disagree, and point to the 2011 court battle between the state and the Catholic dioceses of Belleville, Joliet and Springfield regarding state foster care contracts. The dioceses do not place children with unmarried, civil-union couples – whether gay or heterosexual. The dioceses sued the state to retain the right to continue their long-standing mission of caring for abandoned and neglected children. The court ruled against them, and the dioceses were forced to dismantle their foster care operations.
Yes, the dioceses filed the lawsuit – but only after the state threatened their contracts. Most importantly, Senate debate on the civil unions legislation expressly assured that religious social service agencies would NOT be affected by the legislation.
Thanks.
Robert Gilligan
Executive Director
Catholic Conference of Illinois
The dioceses lost their case because the court ruled that no group has an inherent right to a state contract. I stand by what I said. One lawsuit does not a “litigious nightmare” make. Add in two more lawsuits mentioned in the comment section by Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society and I still don’t buy into the “litigious nightmare” argument.
Also, even assuming their logic is correct, then wouldn’t pretty much all the state and federal anti-discrimination laws regarding race, gender, age and religious affiliation be classified as “litigious nightmares” because of the countless lawsuits they’ve spawned over the decades? And, more importantly, is that a valid reason to oppose those protections?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:47 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: “The Next 89 WLS Talk Star”
Next Post: Illinois Family Institute weighs in on Dillard position
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
=== The dioceses do not place children with unmarried, civil-union couples – whether gay or heterosexual. ===
As if CC objected to placing foster kids because the couples were not married, not because they were gay.
Hilarious.
Based on that logic, will CC come around once those same gay couples are legally married?
Comment by Raymond Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:52 pm
On this, Rich, I agree with you completely. The CCI argument is laughable, even forgetting that they have done their best to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Comment by Eugene Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:52 pm
–The dioceses sued the state to retain the right to continue their long-standing mission of caring for abandoned and neglected children.–
Who’s stopping you from caring for children? You don’t have a right to a state contract.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:53 pm
Spot on, Rich. It’s hilarious that it’s being described as a “litigious nightmare” by the people WHO INITIATED THE LITIGATION. Isn’t litigation usually a nightmare for the defendants, rather than the plaintiffs?
Comment by South of Sherman Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:55 pm
I would take that further and say it is self serving to file borderline frivoulous claims, and then point to your own failed string of litigation as demonstarting it is a litigious nightmare.
A litigious nightmare would be a vague law that spawned contradictory lawsuits and was so vague that few could be expected to understand or follow it.
We can revisit this if anyone files a string of successful lawsuits.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:55 pm
I would also add The Voting Rights Act and Disabilities Act as “litigious nightmares”.
Comment by Tom Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:55 pm
It’s funny, any time marriage equality, birth control and abortion come up in Illinois, there’s Gilligan. But when people are talking about poverty, social justice and the things I actually read about in the Gospels, I never see Gilligan piping up. And I work for a Catholic institution.
Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:58 pm
BTW since the Bible supports slavery, CCI must be up in arms over the litigous nightmare the 13th ammenedment caused.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:58 pm
Well, there has certainly been litigation.
And it certainly has been received as a “nightmare” by some.
Dillard’s sentence could be considered an accurate, literal descriptor of events by some. Whether that complies with the intent of his meaning, only he knows for certain.
Comment by Keep Calm and Carry On Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:59 pm
===But when people are talking about poverty, social justice and the things I actually read about in the Gospels, I never see Gilligan piping up.===
I know, right?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:00 pm
It’s a “frivolous claim” to be kicked out of doing foster care because your organization’s idea of a family doesn’t agree with the state’s? Puh-leez. It used to be that the state protected diversity of opinion and thought. When did we get so - dare I say it? -intolerant? Fortunately, this blog and its readership are a lot harder left than most Illinoisians.
Comment by Being real Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:02 pm
==Most importantly, Senate debate on the civil unions legislation expressly assured that religious social service agencies would NOT be affected by the legislation.==
You weren’t affected. You were only affected because you CHOSE to be affected. Nobody shut down your organization because you wouldn’t send kids to same sex couples. You still have that right. What you don’t have is a right to a state contract and think that you get some sort of exception to the rules. You can do whatever you want with regard to kids and same sex couples as a religious organization but the state doesn’t have to pay for it. You made a choice to shut down your foster care operations. You did not have to make that choice.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:03 pm
Adding …
The notion that the civil union law necessitated CC’s lawsuit is as ludicrous as the suggestion that somehow or another CC was more concerned about the foster couples being unmarried than being gay.
What garbage.
The state changed the law. CC had a state contract. The state told CC that to keep a state contract, it must follow state law.
CC rolled out the fire-breathing bishop from Peoria. The Catholic press and various ultra-conservatives lost their collective minds and claimed DISCRIMINATION!
The state said bye, bye to CC. CC went to court and lost.
Good riddance.
Comment by Raymond Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:03 pm
==It used to be that the state protected diversity of opinion and thought=
Not when it comes to following state contracting rules. You don’t have a right to have a state contract and make up the terms that you will follow.
Puh-leez indeed. You have no clue as to what the real issue involved was, and that was basic contract terms and the right of an organization to have a contract. Neither Catholic Charities nor anybody else is entitled to a contract. Follow the rules like everybody else or don’t participate. It’s really that simple.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:07 pm
“Those murder laws are a litigious nightmare.” - OJ
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:09 pm
The issue was whether the adoption groups were entitled to taxpayer money when they were breaking state law by discriminating. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Comment by Just Me Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:10 pm
Shorter “being real”: stop being intolerant of my intolerance! You’re discriminating against my discrimination!
Comment by South of Sherman Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:11 pm
===It used to be that the state protected diversity of opinion and thought===
Those are still protected. It’s just that you can’t expect to win a state contract if your practices directly conflict with state laws or rules.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:12 pm
Stay tuned. This weekend a group of self-appointed conservative leaders are holding a “Conservative Summit” to vet candidates and make an endorsement.
Spoiler Alert: they are going to endorse Dillard. Most if not all of the conservatives convening are already in Dillard’s camp. It’s a big sham.
Don’t know if this Robert Gilligan is part of the summit that’s already decided to endorse Dillard before they vet Dillard at the summit, but maybe someone could ask him. I would bet yes.
Will be interesting to see how these conservatives massage Dillard’s long time support for gambling expansion.
Comment by too obvious Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:14 pm
Its a frivoulous claim to argue you have a right to a State contract.PUH-LEEZ, There are a number of cases directly on point which raise the question of whetehr the drafters of this litigation bothered with law school.
The suit by fat people against McDonals has more validity.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:15 pm
As an employee of an organization that took over some of CCs contracts, all I can say is their loss is our gain.
Comment by Falstaff Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:17 pm
Catholic Charities fought for the welfare of 2000 kids who were already in the system. This whole notion that this is some hard fought competitive bid is nuts. A pittance of money to serve a lot of needy people was contractually provided. Because the people who perform these services work for a pittance or nothing at all. Before anyone throws out that $151M is a pittance??? For the work they do, it’s a huge savings. I haven’t seen a private contractor out there fighting for this appropriation. Catholic Charities, Lutheran Family services and others have been a coalition of the willing. No one feels “entitled” to a state contract. In many cases they are being reimbursed for the state’s responsibilities that the state has never been able to do on it’s own either effectively or efficiently.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:24 pm
==Catholic Charities fought for the welfare of 2000 kids who were already in the system.=
I wholeheartedly agree. But they and they alone made the choice to cease doing so, at least as far as being supported by state funds is concerned. I’m saddened that this happened. But it’s on them.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:27 pm
@ChicagoR You obviously missed the Catholic Conference’s work last fall in getting Temporary Visitor Driver’s Licenses for the undocumented. http://www.ilcatholic.org/illinois-bishops-back-temporary-visitor-drivers-licenses-for-undocumented-immigrants/
Comment by Robert Gilligan Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:46 pm
Apparently, it was a decision based on situational morality and which master to serve. I don’t imagine it was frivolous decision. As long as the children involved are being afforded the love and respect of the caregivers, that is the only real issue. Mixing church and state in this country will always create bad feelings for one or the other or both.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:10 pm
Robert, I applaud what you were doing there. But I also note you had to reach back almost 10 months to find the example.
Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:12 pm
You know what really sparked a bunch of lawsuits? That whole private property thing. We should get rid of it — amirite, Kirk?
Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:20 pm
Like many things in life, its a matter of choices as to which is more important. In this case what was more important to CCI? Helping children? Or sticking to their beliefs about unmarried couples and gay. If sticking to their beliefs is more important, then fine. But then they shouldn’t be complaining that the government canceled their contracts, or saying its the Government’s fault that they are no longer caring for these children.
Comment by Joe M Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:30 pm
So the Catholic Conference of Illinois sued the State (and lost) and now wants to say that it’s a “litigious nightmare” because they made the choice to sue. Is that about right? Kind of sounds like sour grapes to me and not an argument based on logic and reason.
The dioceses sued the state to retain their perceived right to discriminate against people using state contracts while using children as a shield. The dioceses is plain wrong, morally and legally. If it’s really about the children you put those children into the best possible situation you can weather or not there is a married couple, gay or straight.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:31 pm
@ChicagoR We’re also working on federal immigration reform, but as you know, that has gotten bogged down. But we’re still trying. We just signed on to an amicus brief calling for a retroactive review of mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles, following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
Comment by Robert Gilligan Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:31 pm
Extremism everywhere.
With extremists like Dillard an company, it’s no wonder we don’t have civil unions in Illinois.
Comment by Pinker Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:53 pm
You just can’t complain that a governmental enactment is a “litigious nightmare” when you are the one litigating.
Comment by tominchicago Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:54 pm
I don’t see a “litigious nightmare” when the court said there’s no right to litigate here. Give it up CCI.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:03 pm
Back in ‘76, I wrestled the Litigious Nightmare for the Missouri Heavyweight Championship.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:12 pm
Yes, it is true that the state does not have to guarantee state contracts to any organization, especially one that does not follow state law. This is exactly why civil unions have become a litigious nightmare for all who are trying to following their religious beliefs. The state is violating rights of religious freedom when it did not work with the CCI and other religious organizations to allow them to continue their work in foster care and adoption . CC was forced out of a contract with the state because it did not want to violate its religious beliefs. Unfortunately, Catholic Charities could not afford to run the foster and adoption agencies without state funding.
Comment by Kelsey Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:17 pm
–The state is violating rights of religious freedom when it did not work with the CCI and other religious organizations to allow them to continue their work in foster care and adoption . –
How do you figure?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:23 pm
The business community can give you THOUSANDS of cases of being sued under the various anti-discrimination laws. I’m not saying that all of these cases were frivolous - many were probably legitimate. However, a significant portion were frivolous costing employers a lot of time and money. Illinois needs a loser pays statute.
Comment by 4 percent Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:27 pm
[In regards to homosexuality] “I think it is wrong,” and “I don’t pretend to understand it, but it is not just another normal optional life style.” - U.S. Rep. Al Gore, Jr., 1981
“I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered.” - President Bill Clinton, 1996
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.” - President Barack Obama, 2008
So, are these the extremists you’re talking about?
Comment by Sacajawea Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:34 pm
I do feel for Gilligan. He has to push the issues that the Bishops care about, not the ones we who actually fill the pews care about. Well over a majority of Catholics agree with civil unions, and a pluarity agree with same sex marriage. Time to get back to what the Church needs to focus on, the social welfare and well being of all God’s children.
Comment by SpfldCatholic Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:34 pm
As part of a Catholic couple that was trying to adopt through Catholic Charities, I’m sick of what the church has done in this state. Hundreds of families that were working with Catholic Charities now have to start over with new case workers and new adoption agencies, and the kids are the ones who are suffering. It’s unfortunate that the Church used them as pawns.
P.S. wordslinger, I made the bread and butter pickle recipe that you uploaded photos for online. At least, I *think* it was you. Anyhow, they were awesome.
Comment by Stuff happens Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:50 pm
Don’t feel sorry for Gilligan. He often exaggerates.
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:14 pm
I keep hearing from the right that government is too big, and if we just let “We the People” do what it best, private charities will do the work now that they claim is done so poorly by government.
Well, here is their chance.
CC can still do adoptions. They can still take care of kids.
The only thing that is changed is the source of funding.
Since our right wing friends tell us people will voluntarily step up, this shouldn’t be a problem.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:23 pm
@ Robert Gilligan - “We’re also working on federal immigration reform”
Except, of course, that the Church pulled funding from immigration rights groups that also support marriage equality.
Hello, pot, meet kettle.
Comment by Joan P. Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:33 pm
I was actually considering supporting Dillard..not now Quinn will have my support.
Comment by Freedom Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 8:37 pm
@Joan P. The groups that accepted funding from the Archdiocese in the form of Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) grants did so knowing that they must adhere to Church teaching — that requirement is printed on the application materials. The board of the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) chose to support redefinition of marriage efforts without consulting their member groups. Some of those member groups receive CCHD funding. When ICIRR chose to support redefinition of marriage legislation, it chose to put its member groups into making a choice: give up ICIRR membership in order to adhere to Church teaching, and thereby keep the CCHD funding; or stay with ICIRR and give up the CCHD funding.
Comment by Robert Gilligan Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 11:19 am
–When ICIRR chose to support redefinition of marriage legislation, it chose to put its member groups into making a choice: give up ICIRR membership in order to adhere to Church teaching, and thereby keep the CCHD funding; or stay with ICIRR and give up the CCHD funding. –
So if you don’t follow the rules, you don’t get the contract. What a concept.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 23, 13 @ 12:06 pm