Clearing the Air

As of March 3, the District of Columbia is now the sixth locale where gay couples can “tie the knot.” Already there’s been analysis of how this will affect gay marriage in California and on the national level. Personally, I find local legislation like this in a completely different realm than nationally recognized same-sex marriage.

But there is an aspect of this that does apply to national concerns and needs to be addressed before progress can be made on a nationwide level. Catholic Charities in D.C., which provides social services to the D.C. community, has made significant changes to its policies in response to this new legislation.

The protection and equal rights now afforded to same sex couples in the D.C. area means that Catholic Charities would be forced to provide spousal benefits to gay couples and also allow them to adopt.

Because they don’t want to facilitate or support same-sex marriage, Catholic Charities has stopped handling abortions in the D.C. area and has cut benefits to all its employees. This way they can avoid giving babies or benefits to same-sex couples without being sued for discrimination.

Already people have started speaking out against this move by Catholic Charities, claiming that it is a political maneuver to incite public discontent over the new legislation.

Now, I would be among the first to start railing against any religious organization that is trying to somehow underhandedly oppose what I consider to be positive and beneficial legislation, but this doesn’t seem to be the case here.

It’s no mystery that Catholics are opposed to same-sex marriage, so it’s understandable how someone might come to the conclusion that this move is a political one aimed at stopping same-sex legislation.

But even if this is the case, Catholic Charities has a legitimate religious gripe that, because of its religious nature, cannot be assessed politically.

It’s one thing for a business to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but we can’t use the same standards for an intrinsically religious organization. If same sex marriage is going to succeed on a national level, we must take account of the role played by groups like Catholic Charities.

My worry is that this legislation threatens to impede the free practice of a legitimate religious organization by forcing them into doing things that are against their religious doctrine.

I’m certainly no constitutional lawyer, but there seems like an argument here that this violates the First Amendment.

I don’t know if it’s even legal, should same-sex marriage become nationally recognized, to allow exceptions to certain aspects of non-discrimination for religious organizations. But this consideration is something that needs to enter into the conversation.

I’m not talking about allowing religious groups to not hire an individual based on their sexual orientation.

But if a religious organization is forced to recognize and respect something which they are fundamentally opposed to, the opposition to same-sex marriage is going to be more forceful than it already is.

If a religious group does not want to give a baby to a couple for religious reasons, that should be their prerogative. As for providing spousal benefits to same-sex couples, maybe Catholic Charities should just bite the bullet on this one.