Friday, August 19, 2011

Thomas Moore Society loses suit to force Illinois to subsidize Catholic Charities' discrimination against gay couples in civil unions

Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt has ruled that the longevity of the relationship between the state and Catholic Charities did not entitle them to automatic renewal of their contracts. From the Chicago Tribune:
"No citizen has a recognized legal right to a contract with the government," Schmidt wrote.
    In discussions after the civil union bill went into effect in June, Catholic Charities told the state that accommodating prospective foster parents in civil unions would violate Catholic Church teaching that defines marriage between a man and a woman.
     Pointing to a clause in the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that they believe protects religious institutions that don't recognize civil unions, the agencies said they would refer those couples elsewhere and only license married couples and single parents living alone.
      But lawyers for the Illinois attorney general said that exemption only shields religious clergy who don't want to officiate at civil unions. The policy of Catholic Charities violates state anti-discrimination laws that demand couples in civil unions be treated the same as married couples, they said.
     Schmidt's ruling avoided the religious freedom issue. Instead he focused on whether the state violated the property rights of Catholic Charities when it declined to sign new contracts for the next fiscal year.
Lambda Legal, involved in the case, issued the following response:
"This is the right result. The court correctly concluded on procedural grounds that the state could decline to renew its contracts with four dioceses of Catholic Charities. The state chose not to renew their contracts because they insisted on violating state and federal law by refusing to place children in the homes of couples in civil unions. Illinois correctly determined that this practice was bad for kids, could deny many of them their best opportunity for a better life, and that the state's obligation was to make the transition to other providers as seamless as possible."

No comments:

Post a Comment

ShareThis