Why IFI OPPOSES the Church Exemption Bill, HB 1063
4/27/2005 5:45:00 PM
By Peter LaBarbera, IFI Executive Director & David Smith, IFI Senior Policy Analyst
Let Caesar's dues be paid
To Caesar and his throne;
But consciences and souls were made
To be the Lord's alone.
-- Isaac Watts
Dear IFI Readers,
In February, we saw Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) sign SB 3186, a pro-homosexual, pro-transsexual law that presents a significant threat to the freedoms of churches, faith-based organizations, business owners and landlords of moral and religious conscience (read more about this law HERE).
SB 3186 is one of the most radical pro-homosexual laws in the nation: not only does it amend the Illinois Human Rights Act to add "sexual orientation," but under that rubric it also covers "gender-related identity" -- opening the door for state-enforced approval of transsexuality. That means, for example, that a restaurant owner could face a lawsuit if he reassigns or fires a male maitre'd who decides that he is really a "woman" and wishes to dress and act accordingly.
In short, this law will prohibit Illinois citizens from acting on their beliefs that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality are wrong and harmful lifestyles. (Unlike race, these behaviors are changeable as evidenced by the thousands of ex-"gays" living happy lives today.)
By establishing the dangerous legal precedent of enshrining harmful sexual misbehaviors as a "civil right," SB 3186 demeans true civil rights. Once homosexuality is treated in the law as a basic legal right, it opens the door to more radical laws such as those enforcing "gay adoption," homosexual "marriage" and pro-homosexual lessons and policies in our schools.
Of course, as we have already seen most recently in Philadelphia, "sexual orientation" laws also lead inexorably to the criminalization of Christianity by putting the state in official opposition to traditional sexual morality. (This has also been happening in Canada for many years now.) Ultimately, through "sexual orientation" laws, governments ends up treating those opposed to homosexuality like racists. That is why they are fundamentally anti-religious freedom and so dangerous to society.
Homosexual activists know that SB 3186 is the linchpin without which they cannot achieve their goal of legalizing "gay marriage" in Illinois..
Confusion Abounds
There has been much confusion about what SB 3186 does and does not do -- so it should not be surprising that more questions than answers surround efforts to amend or repeal it.
The liberal sponsor of SB 3186, Senator Carol Ronen, (D-Chicago), is on record saying that under the new law, churches would not be allowed "to discriminate against gay people," and that "this law wouldn't allow them to do that."
Pro-family advocates, including IFI, argued against the bill on the basis that Ronen is essentially correct: SB 3186 could be used to stop churches and religious institutions (not to mention everyday folk) from taking actions opposed to homosexuality.
Liberal activists and journalists like the Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn countered that SB 3186 DOES exempt churches--despite Ronen's comments. The conservative Christian group Alliance Defense Fund essentially agreed, putting out a statement saying that under the new law, the Illinois Human Rights Act Does Not Regulate Churches.
ACLU reveals its secular bigotry, again
Then, in testimony before a House hearing, the ACLU tipped its anti-religious hand, arguing that NO, SB 3186 does NOT allow churches the full freedom to hire and fire ALL EMPLOYEES based on their faith teachings. At issue is the case of the theoretical "gay church janitor." The ACLU says that such positions that are not directly linked to the propagation of church doctrine should fall under SB 3186's anti-discrimination provision, even if the employer is a church.
In other words, according to the ACLU's reading of the newly revised Human Rights Act, a church could fire a pastor -- but not the church janitor -- who announces he's a homosexual or transsexual. Thus this leftist "liberties" organization advances the radical idea that Illinois churches should now be denied the full liberty to live by their Biblical creed.
Two opposition strategies emerge
All conservative pro-family advocates oppose the new "sexual orientation" law, the former SB 3186, which takes effect January 1, 2006. However, two distinct approaches have emerged in response to it.
On the one side are those taking a pragmatic approach -- led by longtime pro-family Springfield lobbyists Rev. Bob Vanden Bosch, Ralph Rivera, and the Catholic Conference's Bob Gilligan. They argue that repealing the "gay rights" law is unrealistic, so the best pro-family forces can hope for at this point is to amend the "sexual orientation" portion of the Human Rights Act to mitigate its anti-religious effects.
On the other side are Illinois Family Institute, Concerned Women for America of Illinois, Family Taxpayers Network and several other pro-family and conservative groups, which strongly support legislation to REPEAL the homosexual/transsexual law. Two repeal bills were introduced this Session: SB 2037, by State Senator Chris Lauzen (R-Aurora) and HB 3741, by State Representative Randall Hultgren (R-Winfield).
The Senate repeal bill has 14 co-sponsors but was never let out of Rules Committee. It is effectively dead for this Session (although we still encourage you to ask your senator to co-sponsor it: call the Capitol Switchboard at 217-782-2000), as is the House bill.
HB 1063: the "take what you can get" approach
The other approach involves a "Religious Exemption" bill, HB 1063, sponsored by newly elected State Representative David Reis (R-Olney), a strong friend of the family, who also co-sponsored the Repeal bill.
HB 1063 seeks to exempt religious organizations and churches from SB 3186, but it has been written so narrowly that there is now debate over which religious groups beyond churches and church-affiliated organizations (e.g., Catholic Charities) it would cover. HB 1063 passed out of committee but is now stalled as its backers seek to extend the deadline for its consideration while compromise language can be worked out.
While Illinois Family Institute understands the need to protect religious organizations and churches from hostile legal and civil actions, we have some serious concerns about HB 1063. Here is why have decided to OPPOSE this bill:HB 1063 leaves "sexual orientation" on the books, thereby lending credibility to the dangerous precedent of creating "civil rights" based on changeable sexual behavior as opposed to inborn characteristics like race. We must not close the book on this question: if homosexual behavior deserves civil right status, why shouldn't other sexual behaviors, say, those "oriented" toward multiple-partner relationships, also merit special government protection?
HB 1063 is limited in its reach and effectively creates "special rights" for churches to oppose homosexuality. Thus the bill leaves non-church-affiliated religious groups, such as Christian-owned businesses, and secular-minded Illinoisans to comply with an immoral "sexual orientation" law. Even obviously "religious" non-profit organizations like IFI and Concerned Women for America would not be protected by HB 1063. In other words, exempting churches from the "gay rights" law leaves all non-covered groups--religious and non-religious alike -- susceptible to its coercive effects.
We find it problematic that a "religious exemption bill" would not even protect all religious entities in the state from being forced to treat homosexuality and gender confusion as a basic "civil right." Ironically, although Catholic Charities would be covered by HB 1063, countless Catholic business owners and even (non-Church-affiliated) Catholic ministries like Catholic Citizens of Illinois could be left out in the cold. We want to protect all moral-minded citizens and groups from being forced to approve of homosexuality -- not just churches and a few groups like Catholic Charities.
HB 1063 would sap energy from the growing movement to repeal the "sexual orientation" law altogether. Pro-HB 1063 advocates say it is unrealistic to talk of repealing "gay rights" given the current make-up of the General Assembly. But are they making it MORE UNLIKELY by cushioning SB 3186's effects on pastors, the very people who should be leading the battle to preserve morality and freedom by repealing this unjust law?
Conservatives and Christians must be unwavering champions of liberty, both religious and civil. They must contend for the natural, fundamental and indefeasible right of every human being to worship God, or deny Him. Christians ought to be forever contending for unrestricted religious liberty -- not specific or itemized religious privileges.
By protecting only SOME religious groups (explicitly), HB 1063 continues the dangerous precedent of SB 3186 by allowing the government to dictate which faith-based groups can or cannot abide by their religious principles. Religious freedom is an inalienable right of all people in this great country: it is not the place of courts, legislators or secular zealots like the ACLU to dictate which people of faith can live by their moral conscience in the public square and which cannot.
The effort to exempt some religious organizations from enforcement of the "gay rights" law merely portends toleration, yet denies absolute religious liberty. There is a significant difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration, in this case, is granted by government concession(s), but true liberty is a God-given right. Toleration (exemption) is a matter of expediency, while liberty (repeal) is a matter of principle.
HB 1063 does not check the expansion of "sexual orientation" in Illinois. Without a repeal of SB 3186, future additions to the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) will automatically include "sexual orientation," thus further restricting our freedoms. Anything that expands the IHRA will inevitably extend state protection, promotion and endorsement of homosexuality, bisexuality and gender confusion.
For example, another bill proposed this Session, HB 1000, would expand and delineate the IHRA's ban on "public accommodation" discrimination to entities such as schools and adoption agencies. Because "sexual orientation" is now a part of the Illinios Human Rights Act, HB 1000 represents another serious threat to the liberties of Illinois citizens and service providers. Hence the ONLY way to preserve freedom of conscience in our state (including for non-religious citizens, who should have the same rights as us to oppose harmful homosexual behavior) is through a REPEAL of SB 3186 -- returning our Human Rights Act to its original state.
By focusing on merely amending the "sexual orientation" law, some pro-family advocates are signaling that they've essentially given up on repealing it. One group listed the status of various life- and family-related bills this Session but did not even report on the two repeal bills, as if they didn't exist. By conceding "gay rights" in Illinois just after SB 3186 was passed by the narrowest of margins (and following a "stealth" Christmas-break lobby campaign by homosexual activists and arm-twisting by liberal power-brokers in the final days of the Session), we risk sending a defeatist message to our opponents.
The fight over SB 3186, which grants special legal privileges based on sexual misbehavior, is far from over. Although some may have never taken the Repeal seriously, or have given up on it, IFI will continue to work hard to overturn Illinois' "sexual orientation" law. Pragmatism over principle?
All Illinois family and pro-life advocates are profoundly appreciative of the years of hard work of Rev. Bob Vanden Bosch, Ralph Rivera and others who are currently lobbying for HB 1063. We simply, but respectfully, disagree with their strategy. We fear that the most compelling case that has been made for HB 1063's passage is political: that they are being realistic and we are not.
However, even if HB 1063 passes, it has potentially high political costs, such as undermining the Repeal effort and creating a two-tiered system of rights whereby SOME citizens and institutions are forced to accept homosexuality while others are free to abide by their moral beliefs. In the end, that division will not survive as secular extremists -- who regard opposition to homosexuality as akin to racist bigotry -- push to force ALL Illinois citizens to support their pro-homosexual agenda.
We recognize that liberal, anti-religious and pro-homosexual groups like the ACLU are lobbying against HB 1063 -- for very different reasons than IFI. But just because these groups -- which are fighting to use state power to enforce a pro-homosexual orthodoxy -- are against HB 1063 does not make it worthy of enthusiastic support.
(You also may be surprised to learn that you, as a taxpayer, are helping pay for the state Human Rights Commission to lobby against HB 1063. IFI finds it interesting that the same Human Rights Commission whose representative said at a recent hearing that it takes an expansive view of religious freedom in Illinois is now lobbying to DEFEAT a bill designed to exempt churches from the "sexual orientation" law!)
We believe that the only way to protect freedom of conscience for all Illinois citizens is to repeal SB 3186 -- a goal that IFI will diligently pursue, no matter how long it takes. With the grace of God and the hard work of people like you, it can be done.
God bless you.
Peter LaBarbera & David Smith
Illinois Family Institute
info@illinoisfamily.org
Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith,
act like men, be strong.
Let all that you do be done in love.
1 Cor. 16:13-18 (NASB)
Please Help IFI
Your tax-deductible gift of any amount helps IFI to achieve its mission: defending marriage, decency, family and the sanctity of life in Illinois. Click HERE to Help.
HELP US GET THE WORD OUT!
Help IFI reach more Illinois families with our news, action alerts and campaign to defend marriage!! Just forward this copy of the IFI E-Alert to your friends and family and urge them to sign up. It's easy and free! Subscribe Now!!
Illinois Family Institute has a working relationship with Focus on the Family, Alliance Defense Fund and the Family Research Council, as well as similar state-based organizations across the United States.
E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format
|
 |
|
|
