Freedom of religion vs. civil unions

• Reprints

Updated: August 4, 2011 4:20PM

Illinois today becomes the sixth state to offer civil unions for same- and opposite-sex couples. While the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act is being touted as a civil rights victory, it’s stirring controversy about religious freedom.

One would think the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act would protect religious freedoms. After all, Section 15 states: “Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body.”

But then it gets more specific, saying: “Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union.”

Thus the question: Does Illinois’ civil union law protect religious practices or simply allow religious bodies the choice of whether or not they want to officiate civil unions?

The Catholic Diocese of Rockford is clearly under the impression that Illinois civil union law does not protect their right to select married couples for children referred to them for adoption or foster care. Last week, Rockford’s Catholic Charities announced they would no longer participate in the state-funded child welfare system to preserve their religious belief that marriage is defined as a bond between one man and one woman. They are severing office leases and laying off staff.

In the Rockford agency’s opinion, they could be sued for discrimination if they turned down a same-sex or opposite-sex couple joined in the state’s new licensing category of civil unions. In other states where civil unions were legalized, religious groups pulled the plug on their state-subsidized adoption agencies rather than face similar accusations.

“The state Legislature failed to pass legislation or a written agreement that would exempt Catholic Charities from the application of the civil unions law. Even with the tireless efforts of the state’s Catholic Charities directors, including Mr. Vonch, and the lobbying efforts of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, the exemption failed,” the diocese’ communications director Penny Wiegert said during a news conference on Thursday. Frank Vonch is acting director of Catholic Charities.

“Because of this failure and the anticipated legal challenges it will present to our free exercise of religion, the Diocese of Rockford is forced to permanently discontinue all state‐funded adoption and foster care operations as of June 1, 2011.”

But Rockford’s response to the civil union legislation is not across-the-board among Catholic groups.

The Thomas More Society says in their view, Illinois statutes allow sectarian groups to follow their religious convictions when it comes to adoption placement. That allowance results from a term left out of the state’s Human Rights Act, which lists which groups are not exempt.

Non-sectarian adoption agencies are listed among the locations where the non-discrimination laws apply. Sectarian adoption agencies are not listed. Thomas More Society attorney Peter Breen said he believes that’s all the protection Catholic Charities needs in order to reject placing children with couples that are not married.

Catholic Charities should continue to operate as before, not referring for foster care or adoption same-sex or opposite-sex couples whose partnerships are not considered marriage as defined by the church, Breen said.

Whether or not Catholic Charities continues working with the state to adopt children could affect the stability of 3,000 of the state’s 15,000 children in need of placement.

And that situation begs the question: Which is more important to gay rights’ advocates — that those children be emotionally upended or that civil unions proponents be allowed to make a politically correct point at the children’s expense?

And should homosexual civil rights supercede religious freedom? Illinois is at a crucial point both constitutionally and ethically to even discuss the issue.

Most traditional religions teach that marriage is based on a one-man, one-woman relationship, the historical and Biblical foundation of the human race. Some churches, such as the Catholic church, teach that marriage is a holy sacrament. No First Amendment-loving jurist would force religious beliefs to succumb to either secular law or cultural pressure.

The battle for the definition of marriage is not over in Illinois, although a recent Gallup poll suggests more and more Americans accept marriage as a civil right that should not be denied based on sexual orientation.

Last Friday, a Catholic-based coalition in Chicago launched another advisory referendum attempt with the goal of gathering more than 370,000 petition signatures. If the signatures are gathered, the question of whether marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman would appear on the 2012 general election ballot.

While Illinois referendums are not binding, having a majority of the state’s voters agree the definition of marriage should be between one man and one woman could affect the legislature’s decision as to whether or not that definition should be added to the state constitution.

But that’s years away, even if the petition signatures are gathered in time for the 2012 election.

Meantime, it’s fairly certain homosexual advocates will not be satisfied with civil unions. It’s very likely they will move to advance same-sex marriage in Illinois. And if that becomes the case, things will become even more touchy for adoption agencies that provide parentless children with both a father and a mother.

Hundreds of same-sex couples are expected to participate in a civil union ceremony Thursday after the licenses are released today. The General Assembly and Gov. Pat Quinn have decided civil unions should be offered in Illinois.

Let’s hope they also decide to solidify one of our state and nation’s most prized foundational liberties: the freedom of religion.