t eanc 0 VOL. 38, NO. 28
•
Friday, July 22, 1994
FALL RIVER DIOCESAN NEWSPAPER FOR SOUTHEAST MASSACHUSETTS CAPE COD & THE ISLANDS
FALL RIVER, MASS.
Southeastern Massachusetts' Largest Weekly
•
$11 Per Year
Mass. court to test if unwed couple can be denied apartment BOSTON (CNS) -- A closely divided Massachusetts Supr1eme Judicial Court has ordered a lower court to try a case that pits the state's interest in preventing housing discrimination against the religious convictions of three Catholic landlords. In its July 14 decision the higher court vacated an earlier summary judgment in favor of a Catholic family in Montague that refused to rent an apartment to an unmarried couple. It sent the case back to Franklin County Superior Court for full trial. The landlords are Louise Desilets, her husband, Paul, and his brother Ronald. ' Only four of the state supreme court's seven judges favored remanding the case fortrial. The other three strongly opposed it. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel ofthe American Center for Law and Justice, a public interest firm which is handling the Desilets' defense, said the higher court's instructions to the lower court have set the stage for a decision that "will ultimately result in the protection of a person's deeply held religious beliefs." "Quite frankly, the way the court addressed the issue, th,~ burden ofproof[on the plaintiff] is going to be so high that there is a good possibility the state will not pursue it," center spokesman Gene Kapp told Catholic News Service. But c.J. Doyle of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights called the new ruling "a grollndless action by an unabashedly liberal court ... that places long-standing constitutional rights at the mercy of aggressive special interests, arbitrary bureaucracies and an activist judiciary." The Catholic League was one of six religious organizations, including national Protestant agencies and the Massachusetts Catholic Conf'~l'ence, that joined in a friend-of-the-court brief urging the high
c ~"'--Jff
caJDj.m
court to uphold the superior court ruling. The housing case had its beginnings in 1989 wh~n the Desilets refused to lease one offour units in a house they owned to Cynthia Tarail and Mark Lattanzi because the couple was unmarried. The landlords said it would violate their religious convictions as Catholics to let their property be used to enable an unwed couple to cohabit. In 1990 the Massachusetts attorney general's office filed suit on behalf of the state's Commission Against Discrimination, saying the Desilets had violated the state's law against discrimination in housing. In a summary judgment in December 1992 Superior Court Judge George C. Keady Jr. dismissed the case on constitutional grounds, saying the Desiletses' right to act on their religious convictions outweighed the rental applicants' claim of discrimination. The state appealed the ruling, leading to the high court's July 14 decision. In its ruling the high court said that the state's "general objective of eliminating discrimination of all kinds referred to [in the law] ... cannot alone provide a compellingstate interest that justifies the application of that section in disregard of the def~ndants' right of free exercise of their religion." The fourt said it recognizes that the "marital status" clause in the anti-discrimination law "substantially burdens the free exercise of religion by a landlord who does not believe in leasing premises to unmarried cohabitants." "The commonwealth has the task of establishing that it has a compelling interest in eliminating housing discrimination against cohabiting couples that is strong enough to justify the burden placed on the de.fendants' exercise of their religion," it l:1 said. lJ
UI*W5WtWSa ~;Jb:M'!l,i!('h,P4».4'l~-1~'·'''~~~~;:;;_~· :=:.::i!",!!:r:'!l~~D"'I!I!!Ji!iAilI:
BISHOP SEAN O'MALLEY blesses fishing fleet at annual ceremony in Provincetown, flanked by Rev. Msgr. John J. Oliveira, left, and Rev. William P. Blottman, pastor of S1. Peter the Apostle parish, Provincetown, at top; below, rear, from left, Jennifer Davis, Kara Codinha; front, Ronnie Lopes, Suzanne Lopes, Beth Enos, aboard the Gale. (Codinha photos)
~il!Irt'IJ!'''D!!J!a!l!llll
.''_''
.~m~!lI••
I !,·. . . ._
111--.l1li[1)
...
_
"A ti'me when a line must be drawn in the sand" WASHINGTON (CNS) "There'comes a time when a line must be drawn in the sand," declared Archbishop Francis T. Hurley of Anchorage, Alaska. He was commenting on a July 13 letter from Baltimore Archbishop William H. Keeler, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops', Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, chairman of the bishops' pro-life committee; and Baltimore Auxiliary Bishop John H. Ricard, chairman of the bishops' domestic policy committee. Addressed to House Speaker Thomas S. Foley, the letter vowed the unalterable opposition of the U.S. bishops to any health care plan requiring abortion coverage. When the prelates threw down their gauntlet, the reaction was
predictable. Within hours, over 65 members of Congress responded that they would be equally likely to dig in their heels against any legislation that did not include abortion and contraceptive services in its mandated benefits package. House Democr!ltic Whip David E. Bonior, a Catholic from Michigan, predicted that 35 to 40 House Democrats would heed the bishops' call to oppose any health care measures that include abortion coverage. He is reportedly working on a proposal that would include universal coverage and give employees a choice on whether their health plans should cover abortion, a plan that might satisfy no one. White House health care spokeswoman Lorrie McHugh said the
Clinton administration "will fight for" inclusion of abortion coverage, but said that the decision is ultimately up to Congress. The bishops - who have often outlined their criteria for health care reform but have never backed a specific piece of legislation on the topic - were firm in their call to Congress. "Now is the time for congres~ sionalleadership to rise above partisan and special-interest pressures and to bring to the floor comprehensive health care reform that will assure decent coverage for all and will not force Americans to participate in the destruction of unborn children," said their letter to Foley. "There is much talk of compromise these days," added the letter, [butj"we write to sayas clearly
as we can that compromise must not come at the expense of the unborn, the unserved, the undocumented and the uninsured." Bishop Ricard said none of the four major bills now before Congress meets the bishops' requirements on universal coverage or the exclusion of abortion. Criticizing the current health system "that serves too few and costs too much," Bishop Ricard urged members of Congress "not to cave in to the powerful economic interests on universal coverage or to the abortion lobby on abortion coverage." "We cannot compromise on'this," said Bishop James T, McHugh of Camden, N.J., a member of the bishops' pro-life committee... Abortion must be excluded," But equally aggressive statements
were coming from those on the other side of the abortion question. "We feel compelled to convey to you our strong commitment that any health care reform package that comes before the House must contain coverage for contraceptive and abortion services ifit is to gain our support," said a letter to Foley from 68. H~use members. "That is not negotiable, it is not discussable, it is not compromisable," said one of the signers, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. "We're saying there's a hard line here. There will not be a health care bill without abortion coverage, period." "Some of my colleagues threaten a fight if abortion remains in a final health care plan," said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, D-Ore. "I guaratee a fight if it is taken out," Turn to Page 13