Overreach by the Archdiocese of Washington

We have a very interesting situation developing here in Washington, DC.

For all intents and purposes, the city is poised to approve civil marriage equality next month. The majority of the City Council supports the measure, and Mayor Adrian Fenty is prepared to sign the legislation when it reaches his desk. Of course, there is that pesky little 30 Congressional review period for all of the District's laws. Barring any real problems there (and it is far from guaranteed that there will not be problems during the review period), then Washington should have civil marriage equality in early 2010.

However, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has issued a full on threat to the city. If civil marriage equality comes to Washington, then the all social service programs administered by the Catholic Church in the city will have to come to an end; so they say. The Church is concerned that the Human Rights Act of 1977, and the religious exceptions within it, do not provide it with sufficient coverage to discriminate against GLBT residents of the city who may want to use some of the social services that the church provides. Therefore, if the Church cannot secure an exemption from the civil marriage legislation, which is essentially an exemption from the Human Rights Act of 1977, then it is prepared to abandon all of those individuals (gay, straight and all in between) aided by its programs.

The Human Rights Act of 1977 is quite comprehensive in terms of who is covered. It even bars discrimination based on appearance. I, however, am more interested in the exceptions. Section 2-1401.03 (b) states the following:

"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to bar any religious or political organization, or any organization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious or political organization, from limiting employment, or admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion or political persuasion as is calculated by the organization to promote the religious or political principles for which it is established or maintained."

Section 2-1401.03 (d) states the following:

"Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit any religious organization, association, or society or non-profit organization which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society from limiting sales, rental or occupancy of housing accommodations which it owns and operates for other than a commercial purpose to members of the same religion or organization, or from giving preference to these persons, unless the entity restricts its membership on the basis of race, color, or national origin. This chapter does not prohibit a private club, not open to the public, which incident to its primary purpose, provides lodgings which it owns and operates for other than a commercial purpose, from limiting the rental or occupancy of these lodgings to its members or from giving preference to its members."

After reading these two exceptions to the Human Rights Act of 1977, it seems to me that the Catholic Church will be well within the law if it stopped taking money from the city, and generated its revenue from its members, and if it simply restricted its services to practicing Catholics. Yes, there would be thousands of people who would temporarily be in trouble because of the loss of services currently provided. However, Rev. Dennis W. Wiley (co-chairman of D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality) made it clear to the "Washington Post" that "[t]here are others who can step up to the plate who would love to have the contracts [that the Catholic Church currently holds]."

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington wants to have its cake and eat it too. It has no intention of operating within the existing laws of the District. It did not have to seek public money to do its charitable work. The Church can continue to provide all of the services that it currently provides, but it will need to do it within the confines of the Human Rights Act of 1977. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This whole situation is essentially a power play. As D.C. Councilman Tommy Wells stated in an article in the "Washington Post," [i]t's a dangerous thing when the Catholic Church starts writing and determining the legislation and laws of the District of Columbia...."

I agree.