TWO SIDES OF A STORY

Illinois Senate Bill SB1716 was named, in the bill itself, to be known as the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.  

Notice the words, “Religious Freedom Protection” come first.  If the legislature thought the civil union part was more important, they would have named the legislation the Illinois Civil Union and Religious Freedom Protection Act.  You will see later why this is an important point.

Section 15 of the act reads: “Religious freedom. Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body.”Looking at the name of the Act and Section 15, one wonders how the State of Illinois has the legal right to try to bar various chapters of Catholic Charities from handling foster care and adoptions because of the church’s policy that refers gay and unmarried couples to other agencies for foster care and adoption services.

DCFS decided not to renew its more than 50-year relationship with Catholic Charities in the dioceses of Peoria, Joliet and Springfield and Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois because of the organizations’ unwillingness to comply with the new state law on civil unions. (Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Chicago ended its foster care services in 2007 after losing its insurance coverage.) 

The letter sent to the agencies said that future funding and contracts were being declined because “your agency has made it clear that it does not intend to comply with the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act,” (which requires prospective parents in civil unions to be treated the same as married couples). “That law applies to foster care and adoption services,” each letter stated. “Thus, there is no meeting of the minds as to the (fiscal year 2012) Foster Care and Adoption Contracts.” 

We all know that I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the very name of the Act and Section 15 barring any interference with religious practice would exempt Catholic Charities or any other religious organization from having to comply with the Act.  This might not have been the intent of the wordsmiths who crafted the language in the bill, but it is what it says.  To quote Carol Brady from the Brady Bunch, “Exact words, Greg.”  Exactly.