Bio
I have been writing about family, parenting, politics and religion since 2000. My work has appeared on Babble.com, Literary Mama.com, in Adoptive Fam...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Illinois Gets Same-Sex Unions, Catholic Charities of Illinois Jumps Ship

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 34
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Catholic CharitiesToday, Catholic Charities of Rockford, Illinois got out of the adoption and foster care business.

The reason?

Today, same-sex couples in Illinois have the right to enter civil unions -- marriage-like partnerships providing them with many of the rights and responsibilities available to opposite sex couples in the state.

Because they didn’t want to work with same-sex couples, Catholic Charities bowed out of child welfare work altogether.

Catholic Charities has tried to frame this as a religious freedom argument, saying that a religious organization should be exempt from working with same-sex couples if it violates the religious beliefs of that organization.

I agree.

This is why I won’t be asking the Catholic Church across the street to bless my partner’s and my union. If I was straight, and getting married to a man I wouldn’t ask them to do it either, because I’m not Catholic and don’t plan on converting. The Catholic Church has the right to refuse to marry me to anyone -- man or woman -- if I’m not Catholic (or for any other reason based on its religious values). That right has been in place since the First Amendment was written and it is still in place, civil unions or not.

What Catholic Charities doesn’t have the right to do is take my state tax money and use it to discriminate against me for any reason -- religious or otherwise. And that is what they say they are unfairly being prohibited from doing. They claim that not being allowed to use their operating funds -- half of which come from the state government -- to discriminate against state citizens is, er, discrimination.

Double Speak, anyone?

The simple fact is, the violation of religious freedom lies in the state funding a religious organization that uses religious criteria to allocate its services. If Catholic Charities wants to keep the gays out, it is perfectly free to do so -- but according to the Bill of Rights, it must fund that agenda without the help of my Big Gay tax dollars.

The Double Speak doesn’t end here, alas. Catholic Charities has framed this issue in terms of being “forced to serve” gay couples. But in adoption, it is not the prospective parents who are supposed to be “served,” it is the children in need of homes and families.

What Catholic Charities has decided to do, is stop serving children in need because qualified same-sex couples might be among the prospective families eager to serve them, too.

Just as I am not planning to ask the Catholic Church to marry me, I would neither ask it to facilitate my adoption, knowing how the institution feels about same-sex couples and queer singles of all descriptions. I have my doubts that many gay Illinois couples would do so, either, given the many other excellent options we have in this state to build our families through adoption.

But if Catholic Charities wants to take their ball and go home because the gays are on the playground, that’s their business. Just don’t say it’s the gays who put a stop to all the fun.

Meanwhile, if you are a justice-minded prospective adoptive parent, consider asking Lutheran Social Services of Illinois to help you find a child who needs you. They don’t discriminate. Neither does The Cradle, of Evanston, or Adoption-Link of Oak Park. If you have other child-centered, justice-oriented child welfare services you’d like to share, please do so in the comments.

As a note: Catholic Charities of Rockford, Illinois was the first to cease all adoptions. Other branches are waiting to decide what to do.

 

Shannon writes about family at Peter's Cross Station and about writing at Muse of Fire.

Photo Credit: teofilo.

  • 34
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
katrina_b 5 pts

Right, which is why they are closing their doors...making their choice.
~Katrina~
My Blog Proverbs 31 Mommy & Wife 
( http://www.proverbs-31-wife.blogspot.com )Like my blog's new FB page ( http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Proverbs-31-Mommy... )!

Shannon LC Cate 25 pts

it is really important to clarify--and keep clarifying--this point. There is no church now that is "coerced" into marrying ANYONE it doesn't want to marry. My ex-husband and I could not have been married in a Catholic Church either, because we were not Catholic, nor had we any interest in converting. Likewise, no church has to marry a same-sex couple if it doesn't want to.
The fact is that we use "marriage" to mean two different things in our culture--one is a legal status that can be had from the the government. This is what many gay rights advocates want. The other is a religious status or blessing (depending on the religious tradition) that can only be had according to the religious system in question. No religious organization MUST confer its blessing on a straight couple outside of its belief system for example--let alone a gay couple. Some churches will marry anyone who comes through their doors, others will only marry people who have belonged to the community for a certain length of time, who have taken part in various premarital programs or counseling required by that religious community, etc. etc.
Legal marriage, however most often happens ALSO when people are married in a religious institution in the United States, because religious leaders are given sanction by the government to sign the legal forms documenting a marriage.
This is not a requirement, however. You can go to city hall and only be legally married, or you can go to church and only be religiously married (if your religious leader does not send off the forms to the government to register your marriage).
As it stands, some churches give religious marriage to same-sex couples whether the government gives it or not. And governments who give legal same-sex marriage (states like Iowa, or Massachusetts, for example) have no requirement that any religious organization marry ANYONE.
If a priest refuses to marry you (gay, straight, whatever) you can still get all the legal benefits of marriage and be married in other ways--another church, or city hall. But if the government denies marriage to a group--gay people, for example (or in the past, mixed-race couples, for another example), there is no way those people can get the LEGAL benefits and responsibilities of marriage whatever a religious institution says or does.
Gay marriage has absolutely NO bearing on anyone's religious freedom.

Shannon writes about family at Peter's Cross Station ( http://peterscrossstation.wordpress.com/ ) and about writing at Muse of Fire. ( http://shannonlccate.com/ )

Shannon LC Cate 25 pts

it's not "their choice" when they use state money, though. If they went entirely private, they could do as they liked.

Shannon writes about family at Peter's Cross Station ( http://peterscrossstation.wordpress.com/ ) and about writing at Muse of Fire. ( http://shannonlccate.com/ )

katrina_b 5 pts

I give the Catholic Charities props for sticking to their believfs. It is sad that the children are the ones who will be hurt, no doubt.
You said that you and your partner would not go to a place that doesn't "approve" to sto speak of your relationship to adopt a child, but that is not the case for all couples.
Glad there are still lots of options in Illinois available to provide adoption for these children. :)

~Katrina~
My Blog Proverbs 31 Mommy & Wife 
( http://www.proverbs-31-wife.blogspot.com )Like my blog's new FB page ( http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Proverbs-31-Mommy... )!

nellewrites 64 pts

While I believe same sex marriage should be legal across the country, as with Canada, I do not believe religious organisations should be coerced into sanctioning such marriages in their church.

As it stands now, there are religious denominations who do wish to marry us, and there rights are abridged. We don't overcome this block by instituting another.

On the Catholic church, I am an ex-Catholic; I did 1-8 in a Catholic school. I find it dismaying that the church would rather abandon children who need good homes than match those good homes to gay couples. It is the child's loss, and the church once again retreats toward obscurity. It would rather shrivel up into a homophobic shell of itself than extend a welcome to gay folk. Funny thing is, the Christ I learned about in school would have been right there out in front welcoming gays, but such is the mentality of the current leadership.

nellewrites

( http://nellewrites.wordpress.com/ )

Scooping It Up 6 pts

I totally agree with you. I think they completely have the right to not offer adoptions if it violates tenants of their religious beliefs. But not if their money is coming from the state. Sorry guys, you are in the wrong. Here. Your own funds, absolutely. State, nope.

Thanks for sharing this.

Come self-medicate with me at www.scoopingitup.blogspot.com ( http://www.scoopingitup.blogspot.com )

Conversation from Twitter

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

lilysea This is not a law but an administrative ruling REQUIRING PRESCRIPTION to be made.

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox that is completely irrelevant as long as the hospital takes government funding.

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox stop taking medicaid money, and they won't have to write any prescriptions they don't agree with.

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

lilysea So you are saying if they take money for providing certain services, govt has right to say they HAVE to provide other services?

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox according to the constitution, yes. Absolutely. But if they were 100% privately funded, they would not have to.

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox again, I am all for them following their conscience, but my conscience says something different and this is my tax money.

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

lilysea So you suggest all catholic health service providers privatize?
and not provide services to govt funded patients of ALL sorts?

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox if they want to avoid prescribing birth control, that's their only legal option.

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

lilysea ok.. sent you a link about what THEY say.. and you didn't have time to read it.. so I will give you that time now..

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox which again, I fully support.

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox no I did read it. But they are not copping to the government funding question in that piece you sent me.

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

lilysea Fine. Then they will do that.. I guess.

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox it's a very clear-cut question: take gov. money, follow gov. regs./DOn't take gov. money, do as you like.

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

lilysea That's because government funding isn't the issue, YET.

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox I hope so. It would make everyone happy.

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox it has been going on and no one has complained yet. Thats all. But it actually is the issue.

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

lilysea I don't think govt funding has been mentioned by either side because it is a moot point in this case.

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox Our media doesn't stay on top of the real issues. Would rather be divisive and sensational.

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox here's an example of reporting that explains the funding question: http://t.co/HPXqNFqu

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

lilysea nellewrites jljacobson Found a good link on the subject... http://t.co/hceHF2aj

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

lilysea Yes funding paid by taxpayers, but you forget, loophole is the requirement for a prescription.. thus forcing a doc to make an act.

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

lilysea White House says open to compromise over contraception http://t.co/38O7WltV Looks like Obama is seeing the light.

nellewrites
nellewrites

myscrapbox A small window only.

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

lilysea It doesn't take govt funding to prescribe birth control because it does not prescribe birth control.

lilysea
lilysea

myscrapbox it takes government funding. Period. Therefor it is subject to the law.

nellewrites
nellewrites

myscrapbox Hiding behind the 1st is inappropriate. A church with say... a belief in slavery could not own slaves. There are limits.

nellewrites
nellewrites

myscrapbox And... Cardinal O'Malley claims believers are 'second class citizens'. As a former Catholic I ask, what are women in the church?

myscrapbox
myscrapbox

nellewrites Don't know, not a practicing Catholic either.