Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Bean concedes
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The Catholic Conference of Illinois is turning up the heat against the civil unions bill, and urged action by its adherents this week…
Please call your state representative and state senator next Monday, Nov. 15 or Tuesday, Nov. 16 and ask him or her to vote NO on Senate Bill 1716. We expect a vote next week! Senate Bill 1716 enacts civil unions and grants those in civil unions the same rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Under this bill the only difference between marriage and civil unions is the name. Your message is simple: “Vote NO on Senate Bill 1716 because it equates civil unions and marriage. I am opposed to undermining marriage in this way.” It is also true this bill could have a significant impact on the Church’s social service missions.
It’s not completely clear what that “significant impact on the Church’s social service missions” means. Washington, DC’s archdiocese originally threatened to close homeless shelters and end various social service programs if the city enacted a gay marriage ordinance. Instead, they simply transferred a foster care program to another group and stopped paying for new employee spousal health insurance.
Fran Eaton has her own translation…
Forcing the Catholic Church to consider civil unions in its qualifications for adoption and other family-oriented ministries would force state policy onto religious doctrine, a possible First Amendment infringement.
* Robert Gilligan, the executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, penned a recent op-ed that provides some clues…
The November 12, 2010 editorial “Time for Civil Unions” stated that civil unions are not the same as same sex marriage. You should have read the legislation more carefully because they are the same.
The bill describes a “party to a civil union” as the legal equivalent of a “spouse” under Illinois law. The bill then states that a “party to a civil union” is entitled to the same legal obligations, protections and benefits as are afforded by the law to a spouse. Proponents of civil unions know lawmakers do not have the political will to pass same sex marriage in Illinois, so they have created the pseudonym of civil unions in order to get the same benefits of marriage by calling it something else.
The real tragedy with this legislation is that it further undermines traditional marriage, an institution necessary for creating and shaping new human life. More attention needs to be directed at how this legislation presents a clash with established principles of religious liberty. Real concerns remain about how this bill could require faith-based employers to grant benefits to same sex civil partners and how it would impact social service agencies by mandating placement of foster or adopted children with same sex civil partners. Do not be fooled. Civil unions are same sex marriage and there are real problems with this legislation for religious entities.
So, it appears that the Catholics may no longer be in the foster child, adoption game if this passes.
* Meanwhile, House Speaker Michael Madigan not only claimed that the civil unions bill has a good chance of passage, he also appeared to endorse it…
“There’s a good chance it’ll pass,” he said. “. . . It’s an appropriate thing to do.”
* Sen. James Meeks is probably hoping the bill never arrives in the Senate. He’s a social conservative and has opposed the idea in the past. He wouldn’t tell Chicago Tonight what he would do if he does have to vote, but said as Chicago’s mayor he would have a duty to uphold all the laws. Have a look…
* The Catholic Conference is also urging abolition of the state’s death penalty. From its website…
Legislation to abolish the death penalty in Illinois may be considered during the fall veto session in Springfield (November 16-18 and November 29-December 2). The Catholic Conference of Illinois (CCI) supports this legislation. The use of the death penalty when there are other means to protect our society, such as sentences of natural life without parole, weakens the respect for all human life. Now is the time to end the death penalty in Illinois. Here are a few things you can do to take action.
1) Call your legislators.
Please call your state representative and state senator and ask him or her to vote YES on legislation to abolish the death penalty. Tell your legislators that:
“The death penalty is not necessary when there are other means to protect our society, such as sentences of natural life without the possibility of parole. Please support legislation to abolish the death penalty.”
You can go to the Illinois State Board of Elections to look up your elected officials or call our office at (312) 368-1066 or (217) 528-9200.
2) Participate in the November 29 Lobby Day.
You can also participate in the “People of Faith Lobby Day” in Springfield on November 29. The Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (ICADP) is providing transportation (for a fee, lunch included) from Chicago and Glen Ellyn. Go to ICADP or contact CCI at (312) 368-1066 for more information.
3) Promote educational efforts on Catholic Social Teaching & the abolition of the death penalty.
* Related…
* Meeks swipes the cone!
* VIDEO: In their own words
* Exposé Hits Hard At Death Penalty System: Since 2000, she learned, $100 million in taxpayer money has been spent via the Capital Litigation Trust Fund. That honey pot was meant to ensure defense counsel in capital cases, especially in places where public defender offices aren’t staffed adequately and must enlist private lawyers. But prosecutors made sure that the fund would also pay for their often-ample nonsalary expenses, including those for investigators, not just for private defense counsel and the nonsalary expenses of public defenders.
* VIDEO: Scott Turow — End the Death Penalty
* VIDEO: Rob Warden — End the Death Penalty
* VIDEO: Karen Yarbrough — End the Death Penalty
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:31 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Bean concedes
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
They don’t want people to have sex outside of marriage, and yet they don’t want a certain segment of the population to be able to get married.
Got it. Good thing I know my state senator will vote yes.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:35 am
my marriage isn’t threatened by anyone else’s; my place in god’s eye isn’t threatened by anyone’s actions but my own.
of course, the catholic bishops (etc) aren’t married, so they may not understand…
Comment by bored now Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:35 am
If the Catholic Church (and Church’s in general) stop offering a substantial social service, do they still deserve their tax exempt status? Or should be they treated like a membership organization (501 C 3 vs 501 C 6)?
Comment by Ahoy Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:44 am
Catholic Charities - as far as I know - has been banned from foster care services after major abuses led to a state investigation and $12 million settlement with victims, including one who suffered severe burns after being forced into boiling water.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:56 am
“The real tragedy with this legislation is that it further undermines traditional marriage, an institution necessary for creating and shaping new human life.”
So does this mean that only marriages that are likely to produce children should be recognized by the state? Should fertility testing be required before a marriage license is issued? Should women over 50 be allowed to marry? How about men who have had vasectomies? And if marriage is “necessary” for creating and shaping new life, what does that mean for single parents?
Comment by soccermom Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:03 pm
Can anyone fact-check this? Does, in fact, SB1716 provide no exemption for religious-based child care providers, in terms of child placement and foster care?
If not, I can almost see Catholic Charities’ point - I can see the case for a religious-based exemption, to allow them to follow their religion and be biased here. There would still be other non-discriminatory child placement services for gay couples, outside the conservative religious services.
Why do I suspect, however, that even if the exemption isn’t there, that Catholic Charities never seriously tried to get the bill amended, and to work with Rep. Harris to modify this language? Anyone with backstory here, knowledge appreciated.
If you fight a bill tooth and nail, rather than trying to shape its content, don’t complain too much when it passes in a form you don’t like.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:08 pm
Meh, they’re entitled to their opinion, but I’m not Catholic, so it doesn’t carry any extra weight with me.
Within the very Earthly confines of the GA, my guess is Madigan’s good Catholic schools education provided him with the mathematical skills to make predictions that carry a very high probability of being correct.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:14 pm
The Catholic Conference has this one wrong. I am a devote Catholic that believes everyone ought to be seen as equals in the eyes of the law.
Comment by UISer Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:40 pm
Gay couples have raised, shaped and protected children far better than some long-established institutions have done.
Comment by Louis XVI Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:48 pm
ZC -
As mentioned earlier, Catholic Charities is banned from foster care because of abuses that occurred under their watch.
The only impact on Catholic Charities is this: if they provide spousal benefits, they must provide identical benefits to civil union couples. Which, btw, may be gay OR heterosexual.
Nothing in the Act requires Catholic Charities to place adoptions with gay couples.
Nothing in the act requires their child care centers to enroll children with gay parents.
And nothing in the Act prohibits the Archdiocese from kicking kids out of their schools for having lesbian parents.
However, Catholic hospitals will be forced to allow partners to visit their loved ones in the hospital.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 12:57 pm
Catholic priests (bishops, cardinals, on up the ranks) can’t have children, have sex or get married and yet claim absolute authority on what is threatening to relationships, marriage and children. That reasoning, completely devoid of sense, is but one of the many reasons I no longer consider myself Catholic.
I heard ‘RC’ no longer stands for “Roman Catholic,” it stands for “RAISED Catholic.” Fastest-growing non-practicing ‘religion’ in American, and yet the church doesn’t seem to understand why….
Comment by Sigh... Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 1:10 pm
The Catholic Church doesn’t seem to have a problem with offering employee spouses health benefits when they’ve been divorced or have had pre-marital sex. So why the double standard with gay employees?
Comment by Lee Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 1:10 pm
I urge the Illinois house and senate, as well as the Federal level of law makers, to start taxing all Catholic and other Religious organizations which insist on forcing their beliefs on the American people. I am an ex-Catholic and demand freedom from this group.
Comment by open Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 1:10 pm
Didn’t they say the world would end when the anti discrimination bill passed too?
Comment by its just me Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 1:11 pm
It will be interesting to see what the Church does when civil unions are passed. The same words can be received much differently when your argument is to prevent rights expansion as opposed to advocating for taking away the duly bestowed rights on a whole group of people. In fact, I think they have a word for that.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 1:21 pm
They don’t speak for me, a straight, married Catholic, and I’ll suggest more Catholics than they’ll admit are okay with Civil Unions than not. We are “New Testament” people, after all, and Jesus would not persecute such people, nor withhold their human rights. Nothing about Civil Unions has anything do with with getting Married in the Church, it is a secular option. The church is not bound to recognize single-sex couples in any church activities. The only *possible* issue is that where a Catholic organization is taking Federal money for performing some service, it has to follow federal rules. They are free to NOT take the federal money at any time, and do as they like. The organization’s raving about this seems inconsistent with a Church that accepts it’s members and even it’s priests as being gay: that’s no longer anathema, only “acting on it” remains so according to Rome. Same as heteros are not supposed to act their urges outside of a marriage either…
Check out the controversy in Springfield over the Benedictine situation this past week, for a sense of where this is going. There’s a college that’s going to lose big in a lawsuit, for sure.
Comment by Altarboy Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 1:42 pm
Catholic Charities has not been banned from foster care. They run foster care and adoption services across Illinois.
Comment by Out of Place Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:00 pm
“The real tragedy with this legislation is that it further undermines traditional marriage, an institution necessary for creating and shaping new human life.” This brings up two ideas at once:
1. I guess that means no where in human existence (go back as many thousands of years as you like) has there ever been any other way for creating human life except through traditional marriage. All other options for creating human life failed completely until traditional marriage came along.
2. There must be huge amounts of research showing how civil unions “undermine” traditional marriage. Guess that means the traditional marriage concept is a delicately balanced idea on the verge of collapse. It could never survive on its own. Of course divorce, adultery, incompatible differences, and strict dogmatic ideology by straight couples have no effects. It would nice to see some references.
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:01 pm
According to the Pew Center, whose polling is well-recognized, 62% of Catholics support civil unions.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:02 pm
another example of more harm done in the name of religion.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:10 pm
I get that the Catholic Church has taken this position, and they are all-in for it. I really do understand where they are coming from, and they bring an important voice to this debate. They should realize, however, that theirs is not the only voice, and unlike in Rome, Illinois is not a dictatorship.
Also, I hope Gilligan enjoys the broad network of supporters he has on this issue. I further hope that those who are pleased to let the Catholics take the lead on this particular issue will remain in the coalition when Gilligan and the Church lobby for immigration reform. I’m sure Gilligan can count on them to stand with him as he and the Catholic Conference of Bishops go all-in for justice for immigrants.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:15 pm
Dear Men in Dresses: take your rosaries and keep the heck out of my doctor’s office and the business of the unions of those who love. As for the death penalty, your church put so many people to death in the name of religion, people of your own faith, people of other faiths, that you are hardly in a position to talk about murder. and you have the concept of a just war. The war on crime is a just war. Let law enforcement conduct that war as they see fit.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:17 pm
Wow, the libs are out in force today. Major Catholic bashing at its best. No wonder Brady lost. I wonder how many people posting here consider themselves religious and attend church on a regular basis.
My guess? Not many.
Comment by Wally Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:43 pm
ZC, the issue with this is because their adoption charity is subsidized by the state. Essentially, their argument is they should be able to exclude gay couples, despite said gay couples basically funding their organization. That’s been the case in every state with same-sex marriage/civil unions, and their portrayal of it is misleading at best.
Comment by adam Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:48 pm
The Church should stay out of everyone else’s bedrooms and keep a much better eye on their own.
Comment by Aldyth Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:53 pm
- Aldyth - Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 2:53 pm:
“The Church should stay out of everyone else’s bedrooms and keep a much better eye on their own.”
Similarly, it should not be against the law for the church to opt out of social issues that are not in line with its teachings.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:31 pm
–Wow, the libs are out in force today. Major Catholic bashing at its best. No wonder Brady lost.–
Is he more Catholic than Quinn? How about more Irish?
Just not more votes.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:40 pm
Is Quinn Catholic? Is Quinn a practicing Catholic? Is Quinn married? Does Quinn have a SO? Heck, I don’t know. The guy seems to just wander around by himself.
“Just more votes” = PQ opportunity to strike deal with unions that Brady could not
Comment by Wally Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:55 pm
Similarly, it should not be against the law for the church to opt out of social issues that are not in line with its teachings.
Its not… no one is forcing Catholic orgs to offer adoption or foster care services. Catholic orgs can opt out if they want.
Comment by dave Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 3:59 pm
I do not understand why a religious organization that is dominated by homosexual male leaders is so outspoken in its opposition to pro-gay legislation. It not as though SB1716 promotes debauchery or sin–it only promotes equal rights.
With regard to the death penalty, I personally am in lockstep with the church’s position. This is basic support for respecting human life.
Apparently, the church supports human life but places some categories of human life above others.
The rights of killers to live trump the rights of the homosexual to legally “marry” under the civil union model. Interesting.
Comment by Jake from Elwood Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 4:01 pm
Wally — Governor Quinn is a practicing Catholic who attends mass regularly. He is divorced and has not remarried.
Comment by soccermom Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 4:02 pm
Thanks Soccermom——–I really didn’t know. I wonder what church he attends in Springfield when he stays at the Mansion. He does stay at the Mansion quite a bit, right?
And, he is pro choice, right?
Comment by Wally Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 4:10 pm
Amalia:
The war on crime is a just war? If you look at the statistics on crime and incarceration, it is hard to defend this.
Comment by tired of press Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 4:10 pm
Thanks YDD for the update. However, now I’m really curious. Either I’m missing a subtlety, or somebody in this debate is wrong or misleading, and I doubt it’s the Dog.
From Gilligan: “Real concerns remain about how this bill … would impact social service agencies by mandating placement of foster or adopted children with same sex civil partners.”
From the Dog: “Nothing in the Act requires Catholic Charities to place adoptions with gay couples. Nothing in the act requires their child care centers to enroll children with gay parents.”
I think at this point I need to do my own homework. But based on the description of this act by YDD, it sounds eminently reasonable and fair to Catholic Charities.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 4:14 pm
The hypocrisy of the Church never ceases to amaze me. They protest that gay unions are wrong because they intrude upon their religion, but they have no problem forcing their religious beliefs over a woman’s choice on reproduction. If gays are such an abomination to them, why should anything they do bother the Church anyway?
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 4:45 pm
Wally,
Did Bill Brady support the Catholic Church’s stance on the death penalty?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 5:03 pm
@tired of the press: do you not believe that those who commit crime should be punished? It is right to pursue justice. I don’t know what you mean about the statistics about crime and incarceration, just make sure your statistics concern the real victims of crime as often statistics simply concentrate on offenders.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 6:10 pm
How difficult could it be to write in an exception in the proposed bill to not compel Churches, synagogues, and any other religious or religiously-based organization to offer adoption or foster care through the Church or a religious organization? Also, a revised bill could simply exempt those same Churches, faith-based organizations, etc., as EMPLOYERS from paying or at least have an “opt out” provision–on the basis of First Amendment objections–for benefits, e.g. health insurance, etc. for “partners to a civil union.” The Legislature should explicitly spell these exceptions out; it’d probably protect the eventual law (and the State’s taxpayers) from court Constitutional challenges, give the religious groups the ability to opt out (which is likely a small % of employers or adoption/foster care providers anyway, and same sex partners could always seek out other organizations, including DCFS itself, for such things) and, likely, more folks would then be able to deal with the law–and legislators support it. Note: a “civil union” is NOT a religiously-sanctioned MARRIAGE nor SHOULD it be–it just isn’t folks–it’s a different (though admittedly related) legal status as a couple. But the time is ripe for COMPROMISE on this sensitive issue–re-work the bill’s language and re-submit it in early January when only a simple majority is necessary for passage….
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 6:10 pm
“Dear Men in Dresses”
What a bunch of bigots.
The Catholic Church has survived all sorts of hardships over 2000 years…from oppression to self inflicted wounds like the priest sex scandal. My guess is that it will survive insults from a bunch of Chicago D’s.
If an organization doesn’t support what it stands for, then it stands for nothing. The Church defends its beliefs. Deal with it.
Comment by Park Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 6:14 pm
hisgirlfriday—-Haven’t we bashed Brady enough? The Catholic church? Your guy Quinn is the Governor, so let’s discuss him,ok.
Is PQ pro-choice?
Comment by Wally Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 7:26 pm
I’m Catholic and happen to disagree with my church on civil unions, while agreeing strongly with my church on the death penalty. Most of the comments here have avoided Catholic-bashing, thankfully, but a few (e.g., Amailia’s) are pretty shameful, nothing short of bigotry. (Yes, I realize there’s some irony involved, in that the Catholic Conference is calling for a restriction on the rights of same-sex couples. But bigotry is a poor response when you’re arguing that the Catholic Conference has a poorly thought-out, prejudiced stance. Respect is a more persuasive tool.)
Comment by Steve Downstate Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 10:14 pm
The Catholic Conference of Illinois doesn’t “represent” Illinois Catholics anymore than the Tea Party-ers “represent” Illinois Republicans. Giving either group much press or attention fuels both. So it bothers me to see so many people refer to “The Church” when talking about the CCI. They are not The Church I know.
Comment by Circular Argument Wednesday, Nov 17, 10 @ 11:15 pm
Wally,
How is me pointing out that Brady disagrees with the Catholic church on church doctrine regarding the death penalty a “bash”?
Nothing about my post says that either Brady or the church is right or wrong on the issue, it’s just pointing out the FACT of Brady holding a different point of view from the Catholic church on an issue which refutes your argument that somehow a vote against Brady was a vote against Catholics.
Also… for the record, “my guy” was Dan Hynes and I would have much rather cast a vote for him or Kirk Dillard on Election Day but unfortunately my picks lost out on Feb. 2. Not that it really would make my post any less accurate if Quinn really was “my guy.”
Wally, you do get that this isn’t your standard RedState/DailyKos super-partisan fighting blog right but a place for grown up political observers to get together and debate/snark?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 12:53 am
Newbies….
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 1:14 am
Wait, let me get this straight. . .passing civil unions forcing the rule of law over church doctrine amounts to a 1st Amendment violation, yet defeating a bill for exactly the same reason is not? Am I following?
Comment by What planet is he from again? Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 8:45 am
“The Church defends its beliefs.”
Here, the Church isn’t defending its beliefs. It’s trying to shove its beliefs down the throats of non-Catholics by giving them the force of law. If they don’t want to recognize civil unions or marriage for gays, fine. But don’t make the law impose those beliefs on the rest of us.
Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Nov 18, 10 @ 9:07 am