http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum
Same-sex marriage bill, as written, called a threat to social service contracts
By Tim Craig and Michelle Boorstein
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to
continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city
doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect
tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and
health care.
Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious
organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for
same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting
discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee
benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no
choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the
archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social
services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."
Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the
city's long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.
The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the
council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics.
Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of
nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people
in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to
city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not
the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed
out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own
coffers.
"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language
remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese,
wrote to the council this week.
The church's influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council
member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish."
Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end
the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands.
"They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social
services infrastructure," said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage
bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.
The standoff appears to be among the harshest between a government and a
faith-based group over the rights of same-sex couples. Advocates for same-sex
couples said they could not immediately think of other places where a same-sex
marriage law had set off a break with a major faith-based provider of social
services.
The council is expected to pass the same-sex marriage bill next month, but the
measure continues to face strong opposition from a number of groups that are
pushing for a referendum on the issue.
The archdiocese's statement follows a vote Tuesday by the council's Committee
on Public Safety and the Judiciary to reject an amendment that would have
allowed individuals, based on their religious beliefs, to decline to provide
services for same-sex weddings.
"Lets say an individual caterer is a staunch Christian and someone wants him to
do a cake with two grooms on top," said council member Yvette M. Alexander
(D-Ward 6), the sponsor of the amendment. "Why can't they say, based on their
religious beliefs, 'I can't do something like that'?"
After the vote, the archdiocese sent out a statement accusing the council of
ignoring the right of religious freedom. Gibbs said Wednesday that without
Alexander's amendment and other proposed changes, the measure has too narrow an
exemption. She said religious groups that receive city funds would be required
to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples
and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples.
Peter Rosenstein of the Campaign for All D.C. Families accused the church of
trying to "blackmail the city."
"The issue here is they are using public funds, and to allow people to
discriminate with public money is unacceptable," Rosenstein said.
Rosenstein and other gay rights activists have strong support on the council.
Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the judiciary
committee, said the council "will not legislate based on threats."
"The problem with the individual exemption is anybody could discriminate based
on their assertion of religious principle," Mendelson said. "There were many
people back in the 1950s and '60s, during the civil rights era, that said
separation of the races was ordained by God."
Catania, who said he has been the biggest supporter of Catholic Charities on
the council, said he is baffled by the church's stance. From 2006 through 2008,
Catania said, Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts,
as well as several hundred thousand dollars' worth this year through his
committee.
"If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take
city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to
fill the shoes," Catania said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in
only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.
Terry Lynch, head of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations, said he did not
know of any other group in the city that was making such a threat.
"I've not seen any spillover into programming. That doesn't mean it couldn't
happen if [the bill] passes," he said.
Cheh said she hopes the Catholic Church will reconsider its stance.
"Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical
disagreement with us on one issue?" Cheh asked. "I hope, in the silver light of
day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this
threat."
This Story
a.. Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum
b.. Gay marriage advances in D.C. Council
c.. Pastors unite to support same-sex marriage in D.C.
d.. Same-sex marriage foes vow court fight
e.. Waiting to Wed Where It Matters
f.. Gay Couples Put off Marriage, Waiting for D.C. Law
g.. Gay Marriage Bill Unveiled Before Packed D.C. Council Chambers
h.. D.C. to Introduce Same-Sex Marriage Bill
i.. D.C. Says Votes Aligned for Gay Marriage Bill
j.. DISTRICT GOVERNMENT: Pastor Redoubles Efforts vs. Same-Sex Marriage
k.. O'Malley Seems Open to Recognizing Out-of-State Gay Marriages
l.. How Gay Marriage Recognition Works
m.. D.C. SUPERIOR COURT: Judge Declines to Stay Law on Gay Marriage
n.. GAY MARRIAGE: Judge Asked to Block Decision
o.. D.C. Panel Hears Arguments On Gay Marriage Referendum
p.. SOUTHEAST: Clergy Rally in Support Of Same-Sex Marriage
q.. Some Clergy Declare Support of Same-Sex Legislation
r.. Group Aims to Block D.C. Marriage Bill
s.. Gay Marriage Fuels Debate Among D.C. Democrats
t.. D.C. Votes to Recognize Gay Marriage
u.. Barry Warns of "Civil War" Over Same-Sex Marriage
v.. Uproar in D.C. as Same-Sex Marriage Gains
w.. Friends, Foes of Same-Sex Marriage Monitor District's Legislative Moves
x.. Amendment on Recognizing Other States' Gay Marriages (pdf)
y.. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Ministers Lead Protest of D.C. Legislation
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
