50 Comments - 47th Ward - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 1:47 pm: If it wasn’t clear to some legislators who voted for civil unions, and especially those who apparently don’t understand the Human Rights law, then this bill can clarify things. Private, religious organizations can discriminate. They can also receive state funds. But they can’t do both. Put it to a vote and then wonder what some of these legislators do all day in Springfield, because there is an alarming lack of familiarity with basic legal principles on display. I oppose McCarter’s bill, but would hope a compromise could be reached to allow for a transition away from religious-based providers so that the children and families won’t have their lives needlessly upended. - How Ironic - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 1:55 pm: If they don’t want to play by the rules of the State, then quit begging for the State’s money. If the Church feels so strongly about their beliefs, then provide those services only using church money. Not MY money. Would we be arguing about this if the Church were trying to do the same thing with interracial couples, or minority couples? Because 50 years ago the church was using those arguements (goes against ‘Gods will’) to buttress arguments against those unions. - Cheswick - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:00 pm: Sorry in advance to my liberal friends, of which I am one. Politically, I know I should be against this bill. But, philosophically, I am for it. So, I voted to support the bill. If this can be done, it should be done. (Also, I refrained from saying “it’s for the children” about three times.) - Seriously??? - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:06 pm: Legalizing discrimination is never a good idea. - Downstate Illinois - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:10 pm: Catholic Charities can do foster placing cheaper than the state. They also know that placing kids in two-parent families is better than one parent families, placing kids in families where the parents are married is better than when they are not. - Seriously??? - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:15 pm: Downstate Illinois - Can you please site your sources for such “data”??? - zatoichi - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:18 pm: The argument becomes ‘I want your money but I do not want to follow all your rules’. Seems pretty self centered. At the same time while Catholic hospitals do not do abortions, if a patient wants/needs one arrangements with another provider can be made. Seems both sides need each other in most situations, so I imagine a solution will eventually be worked out. - walkinfool - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:20 pm: To me this is a civil rights issue. Would we allow a job placement service to continue to receive state money, if they discriminated against women or certain racial groups, based on their firmly held beliefs? The answer today in America, is thankfully NO. - Ahoy - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:22 pm: I don’t think its right to inject religious beliefs into a state contract. I do not support this legislation. Will we allow others to be exempt from following state law or just a large group of voters (Catholics)? - Ahoy - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:26 pm: –placing kids in families where the parents are married is better than when they are not.– Because in all aspects, bad married people are much better than good single gay people? It’s too bad that people are out there that see the world in this kind of black and white statements. - lincoln's beard - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:30 pm: Interestingly, this language would permit a religious child welfare agency to discriminate against *any* couple in a civil union, even a heterosexual couple. Was that the intent? - red cup - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:46 pm: The current law is in direct violation of church and state. Why are the people who oppose civil unions forced to live under one set of laws during the work week and a separate set of beliefs on the weekend? No one has ever had an answer for that question. And this is no simple philosophical difference either - many religions believe same sex couples and civil unions are a mortal sin and will not discard this belief in any way. This doesn’t mean they can’t be great foster children service providers. Even the Plan B controversy ruled in the favor of Pharm’s who did not wish to distribute the drug because of religious beliefs. - Lakeview - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:48 pm: Replace “same sex” with “interracial” or “mixed faith”, and would anyone be for it? Well, anyone you’d want to associate with? Anyone interested in avoiding a trip to the Supreme Court? - Just Observing - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:57 pm: I chose “oppose” but I think it would make sense to provide a longer timeline for Catholic Charities to comply or stop receiving state funds. The fact is there are hundreds or thousands of kids under their care at the moment and it would seem prudent to give a few years for Catholic Charities to transition out of this role and allow other agencies to ramp up their adoption/foster care services. - Liberty First - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 2:58 pm: Religious groups have constitutional protection. Gay groups have legislative protection. There is no reason either side has to be absolute. Catholic Charities refers gays to alternatives. That should be enough. - lincoln's beard - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 3:03 pm: I’d love to see Catholic Charities explain why it’s okay, according to their religion, to place a child with a Muslim mixed-sex family, but not a Christian same-sex family. - amalia - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 3:23 pm: opposed to their discrimination. and especially to the State funding which supports their discrimination. - Anonymous - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 3:31 pm: @red cup said: “The current law is in direct violation of church and state.” You couldn’t be more wrong. The 1st Amendment protects you from the state sanctioning a religion or prohibiting you from exercising your religion. The current law does not run afoul of either of those concepts. People mistakenly believe that the 1st Amendment protects their religious interests in all places. It doesn’t. You don’t have a right to a state contract. Catholic Charities is still able to adopt out children to whomever they chose but the state isn’t going to support them any longer. There is no Constitutional violation there. And, if you haven’t guessed, I’m opposed to this legislation. The Church should be more concerned about the children rather than their outdated religous dogma. Religions is too often used as a basis to be discriminatory and when they are called out on it they scream about the 1st Amendment. You can practice your religion in your homes and churches. You don’t get to practice your religion via a state sanctioned contract. - Aldyth - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 3:35 pm: It sets a terrible precedent. You get to pick and choose who you are going to serve, regardless of equal rights laws? Wrong thinking, wrong century. - Demoralized - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 3:39 pm: Anon @ 3:31 was me. Man I’m having a bad day. - Ahoy - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 3:42 pm: –Religious groups have constitutional protection. Gay groups have legislative protection.– Gay people have constitutional protection just like everyone else. Everyone has equal protection under the law, that’s part of the U.S. Constitution. - Esquire - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 4:04 pm: I support the bill because it restores the status quo. Too many legislators simply failed to study the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act and relied upon assurances that it would not interfere with religious institutions. I doubt that any legislators envisioned the litigation that followed concerning adoptions processed by religious agencies. There is some merit that the religious exemption may not extend to religious institutions receiving state contracts, but I doubt that this was discussed before the civil unions bill was called for a vote. In a nutshell, too many legislators in Illinois rubber stamp legislative bills without meaningful deliberations or debates. If the Illinois Supreme Court ever revisits the “enrolled bill doctrine,” the General Assembly is going to be embarrassed. - Wensicia - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 4:09 pm: I can’t support any law that protects an organization’s right to discriminate. - Maven - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 4:11 pm: No religious exemption for bigotry. Period. Given their track record, for the Catholic Church to be discriminating about who raises children is absurd. They are not a good judge of who should be in charge of children and who should not. While they can discriminate all they want, they shouldn’t use taxpayer funds to enshrine discrimination. - Bill - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 4:14 pm: Opposed to discrimination - Skeeter - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 4:19 pm: Oppose, but given the record of the Catholic Church I don’t want them to have anything to do with kids anyway. - wishbone - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 4:21 pm: “No religious exemption for bigotry. Period.” Period! - cjn - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 4:21 pm: As a gay American, why should my taxpayer dollars go to support an institution that won’t let me receive their services only because I am gay. - D.P. Gumby - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 4:24 pm: Typical Catholic Church–they want state money to support their religious beliefs. Same w/ interference w/ family law, woman’s choice, etc. No matter how “good” or “efficient” they may be, that doesn’t rationalize expenditure of state funds for discrimination. - Robert - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 4:27 pm: Support. Same sex couples today can find an agency to help them adopt a child. The adoption process takes a long time so kicking out one of the largest providers isn’t something that should happen overnight. It is quite probable that state funding doesn’t adequately cover the true costs of doing the adoption process right, and Catholic Charity donors are funding some of the costs. If Catholic Charities’ involvement could be phased out over a period of a few years, absolutely phase them out. But taking out a big provider of these services would have the result of fewer kids getting placed, or longer delays in placement. Or penalize them - cut funding by 25% to agencies who don’t allow same sex couples and earmark those funds to something like education on alternative lifestyles, just to tick them off. - Joe - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 4:28 pm: So …. recognize the legal rights of same sex couples, except only if you want to. - wordslinger - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 4:49 pm: –…child welfare agency that is religiously based or owned by, operated by, or affiliated with a bona fide religious organization may decline an adoption or foster family home application, including any related licensure and placement, from a party to a civil union if acceptance of that application would constitute a violation of the organization’s sincerely held religious beliefs and,… The bill is ludicrous and a rejection of the very essence of American heritage and progress. For a few bucks, the Catholic Church in Illinois proposes that we toss out the evolved state of Freedom of Worship and allow the state to decide which are “bona fide religious organizations” that have “sincerely held religious beliefs?” Who decides that? You? Me? The nut down the block? What an incredible proposition. I’ll tell you one thing: for most of American history, the American power structure, often aided and abetted by the state, was of the belief that the Catholic Church was not a “bona fide religious organization” with “sincerely held religious beliefs” and discriminated accordingly. It’s astounding that alleged leaders of a group of people that suffered great discrimination in this country for decades would appeal to the state to choose “bona fide” religions in order that they could make a buck while discriminating. You folks are really confused. - Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 5:00 pm: Wordslinger, I wondered when somebody would catch that. It was kind of a quiz to see who was really paying attention. This bill would essentially require government to certify religious bona fides. I opposed the federal journalist shield law for that very same reason. Congress should not be in the business of deciding who is and who isn’t a “bona fide” journalist. - wordslinger - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 5:08 pm: –The current law is in direct violation of church and state.– In what way? That’s one of the weirdest comments I’ve ever read here. –Why are the people who oppose civil unions forced to live under one set of laws during the work week and a separate set of beliefs on the weekend? No one has ever had an answer for that question.– Everyone has easy and obvious answers for that question, you just apparently don’t get them. Tell me you weren’t educated in public schools. Would you rather have it that the state ran the church or the church ran the state? America might not be the place for you, dude. A lot of folks since about, oh, the 1600s, have come here to avoid just those situations. Try Teheran or Riyadh. They’ve managed to put them both together. - Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 5:19 pm: I talked with Sen. McCarter this afternoon, by the way. He’s open to changing the “bona fide” language. - lincoln's beard - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 5:19 pm: @rich, @wordslinger That “bona fide” objection you guys have is a weird one. Isn’t the government /constantly/ deciding whether something is a “real” religion or a “real” belief? Like, for figuring out tax-exempt status? Or for deciding whether someone qualifies as a conscientious objector? Or for enforcing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? It’s not unprecedented. - Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 5:23 pm: LB, do you seriously want the government decreeing what is and isn’t a bona fide church? - Pat Collins - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 5:36 pm: During all wars, the US felt religious freedom was so important that objectors were allowed to avoid combat duties. Even during the revolution. Apparently what we could risk national existence over, can’t even be allowed to step aside, in the very small number of adoptions these days. - wordslinger - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 6:00 pm: LB and PC, you’re not too clear on the history of conscientious objectors in the United States. In the first war of conscription, the Civil War, all potential conscripts were allowed to buy their way out or employ substitutes. Those who absolutely refused to do either for religious reasons were jailed or fled to Canada or the West. In WWI, conscripts who claimed to be conscientious objectors could be impressed into non-combat roles at the discretion of the government. Those who refused either, were jailed. In WWII, objectors who refused non-combat roles were impressed into the Civilian Public Service Camps. Those who fought that, were jailed. In the 1960s, rules were changed to allow for refusal of service on religious grounds, but the government decided who was a a member of a bona fide religion and who wasn’t. Government, deciding, mind you, who went to jail for dodging the draft and who did not on religious grounds. The all-volunteer force has solved that problem. As far as exemptions from taxation for religious reasons, that can still be an area of government discrimination, but it’s not as prevalent as it once was. Witness all the storefront churches. The solution to that government discrimination is to eliminate all tax exemptions for religious organizations. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” And Pat, I’m sure you wouldn’t have a problem with a fundamentalist Islamic religious group getting state contracts and refusing to place children with Christian couples, would you? - Anonymous - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 6:17 pm: As a brother to a sister who adopted 2 of her children, I can say it’s an important service, no matter who is providing it. As a raised Catholic, I can say that the Church is wrong in their practice of not working with same sex couples for adoptions, or in recognizing gay marriage, or in not ordaining female and married priests. As is, Catholic Charities is a leader in placing children in homes in Illinois, hopefully great homes. This needs to be worked out. As much as I disagree with the Catholic Church on not performing gay marriages, there is no law stating they need to. It is incumbent upon the State in this instance to fund or not fund the institution, knowing the Catholic Church rules. I personally think it is a valuable service, and the more help the better. Short term, we need to work out a compromise. Long term, we need a debate. - Its Just Me - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 7:24 pm: Red cup, in this instance the church is not acting as a church, but rather a not-for-profit whose business is adoptions. - Steve Downstate - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 8:14 pm: I’m a supporter of GLBTQ rights and civil unions and marriage equality rights in particular. However, I see the “opt out” issue here as being one of religious freedom. It’s not unreasonable to try to strike a balance between one group’s rights and another group’s rights when at least one of those groups is acting out of sincerely held religious beliefs. I would say that, I think, if the religious group were Buddhist pacifists who did not want to place children with families in which one or both parents were members of the military. The most important provision in McCarter’s bill, as far as I’m concerned, is the one that says that any agency that takes that stance (opting out) is required to make a good-faith effort to refer the interested couple to another agency that is ready to work with them. If that provision were not in there, I would say the bill should be scrapped. - wordslinger - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 8:45 pm: –I would say that, I think, if the religious group were Buddhist pacifists who did not want to place children with families in which one or both parents were members of the military.– Then your imaginary Buddhist group would have to forgo state contracts and money to practice their discrimination. - red cup - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 8:49 pm: Anon 3:31 “The Church should be more concerned about the children rather than their outdated religious dogma.” Outdated religious dogma, are you kidding me? “You can practice your religion in your homes and churches. You don’t get to practice your religion via a state sanctioned contract.” There you go again. We are supposed to follow one set of rules during the week and another set on the weekends. Unlike some people we still believe a mortal sin is a mortal sin. Whether it be in the time of the Old Testament or today. Shame on you for telling us we should just throw out our religious beliefs because you happen to think we are “out of touch” and that it shouldn’t apply to a state contract. - VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 9:07 pm: This is all about discrimination. Adults wanting children do not get children for many reasons. Applying for adoption does not automatically qualify an adult to become an adopted parent. Sincere couple have their feelings hurt every day through the adoption process. Gay couples should not be favored over other couples in this respect. The point here is to serve the children in need, not make couples parents. The State has set up a situation where gay couples may cry discrimination when they are refused in becoming adoptive parents. Whether it is justified or not. That is not good. This is all about discriminating who becomes a parent. What disqualifies one couple may in a similar case, may not be disqualifying. Demanding that some couples get special treatment warps the process. It is good to let Catholic Charities out of this situation by referring couples who they have traditionally found to be disqualifying, to another group that will not find being a homosexual couple not a reason for disqualification. This will allow the referred group a better chance to decide if the gay couple has other disqualifying reasons. This law does not make it easier for gay couples to adopt. It merely prevents an agency from using the homosexuality of the gay couple as a basis for disqualification. Demanding that Catholic Charities handle gay couples is foolish. Claiming that Catholic Charities should no longer be able to handle state adoptions is also foolish. This is about discrimination. For the best possible homes for these children. It is tiring to hear adults complaining about their rights. It isn’t about them. It is about finding the perfect parents for children. As all the couples that have been turned down in the adoption process if they feel hurt about being turned down. Of course they are. That’s life. - Bigtwich - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 9:30 pm: –Unlike some people we still believe a mortal sin is a mortal sin.– Don’t take the money if you can’t do the sin. - wordslinger - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 10:08 pm: –Shame on you for telling us we should just throw out our religious beliefs because you happen to think we are “out of touch” and that it shouldn’t apply to a state contract.– –Unlike some people we still believe a mortal sin is a mortal sin. Whether it be in the time of the Old Testament or today. Shame on you for telling us we should just throw out our religious beliefs because you happen to think we are “out of touch” and that it shouldn’t apply to a state contract.– Well, if we’re going to operate by Old Testament rules, then I guess we should just bring back slavery and polygamy, because the prophets rolled that way. What don’t you get? There are many different religions practiced in the United States. It’s kind of the point of the European exodus to the New World. Many people don’t practice at all. Why should your interpretation of your faith take precedence in secular matters. Why not mine? - Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 10:21 pm: ===There you go again. We are supposed to follow one set of rules during the week and another set on the weekends.=== Actually, no. Nobody’s forcing anybody to take a taxpayer check. I can see the merit in both sides of this argument, but your religion is just that. Your religion. - Demoralized - Monday, Oct 17, 11 @ 11:47 pm: @red cup: I have no shame in this matter. Your religion is not entitled to a state contract. You are still free to practice your religion and operate as an adoption services agency. You are not being forced to give up your beliefs in any way. Also, I’m entitled to present yours and any other religion as “outdated” if that is the way I see it. Religious dogma such as this is why a lot of people avoid church these days. Intolerance and attempts to shame “sinners” is not a welcoming atmosphere. But, this isn’t a discussion on religion so I’ll stop there. - Anon3 - Tuesday, Oct 18, 11 @ 7:44 am: DCFS/DHS has let this go on too long. These organizations accept state money and engage in discrimination. Either play by the rules as written by Illinois or decline the contract. The real winner here is the Thomas Moore Society, they are running full page ads in the local church newspaper for funds to protect the millions of dollars of contracts for the church. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.