The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, DC has threatened to stop providing all social services within the District of Columbia unless the DC City Council abandons plans to pass a same-sex marriage law.

This threat comes during at the end of the week the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops promised to bring down the health reform bill in the House of Representatives unless a vote was taken on an amendment that would ban insurance coverage of abortion services within the new insurance exchange, even for those who pay 100 percent of their premiums with their own money.

That amendment passed in the House and has sparked a massive organizing effort by women’s rights, reproductive health and progressive religious groups throughout the country.

Tensions are now running high in DC as the Church wages battle with the DC City Council over the same-sex marriage bill, which the Church opposes vociferously.

The Church is one of the city’s largest social service provider and
receives between $18 million to $20 million in city funds for 20 to 25
programs run by Catholic Charities, Edward J. Orzechowski, the
charity’s president and chief executive officer, told the Post.   The Archdiocese has said that if the same-sex marriage bill passes, the Church will stop providing services to the poor because same-sex marriage is against the Church’s teachings.

But the Washington Post reported on Friday, November 13th that little threat exists to the Church’s practice of its faith:

Under the bill, headed for a 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. Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

The Church is against same-sex marriage.  Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, told the Post that the city is "the one giving the ultimatum."

"We are not threatening to walk out of the city," Gibbs said. "The city
is the one saying, ‘If you want to continue partnering with the city,
then you cannot follow your faith teachings.’ "

Now, however, D.C. Council members are hardening their opposition to what they perceive as threats to the autonomy of the District to make laws and policies.  And, according to the Post, "several council members said Thursday that Church officials
miscalculated by saying this week that their Catholic Charities
organization will have to end its contracts with the city if the
proposal passes without changes."

Moreover, some members see little merit to the Church’s concerns it will be forced to engage in activities that go against Church teachings.

Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), one of two openly gay members of the council,
said Thursday morning that he hoped to reach a compromise with the
Church. He noted that it is a major provider of services for immigrants
in his ward.

Late Thursday, however, Graham said he had changed his mind after
reviewing same-sex marriage laws in New Hampshire, Connecticut and
Vermont. He asked why the Church has not abandoned services in those
states.

"If the Catholic Church has been able to adjust in Connecticut, I think they can certainly adjust here," Graham said.

Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D) said he plans to meet with
his colleagues Friday to discuss the issue. But he added, "I don’t know
where the compromise would be. IIt seems to me if they choose not to provide those services, we will have to find someone else," Gray said.

Linda C. McClain, a law professor at Boston University who is studying
the same-sex marriage debate nationwide, said the outcome of the
standoff between the District and the Church could have far-reaching
implications for other states.

"This case really pits the commitment to religious freedom against
the importance of anti-discrimination," McClain said. "The courts have
been pretty clear that you can’t force a religious organization to
express a message it doesn’t agree with. . . . But it’s a tougher case
to say you won’t be able to provide services to the poor because of
this."

The move by the Church has also angered leaders of other faith traditions.  More than 200 members of the city’s clergy who support same-sex
marriage issued a statement Thursday denouncing Church’s stance.

"To
hold hostage the rights of human beings over this, I think, is just
really despicable," said the Rev. Dennis W. Wiley, co-chairman of D.C.
Clergy United for Marriage Equality. "There are others who can step up
to the plate who would love to have the contracts."