Church open to same-sex benefits talk

Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Massachusetts yesterday told lawmakers that the state's bishops would "join the discussion" of granting domestic-partner benefits to same-sex couples, but that they remain opposed to legalizing gay marriage or civil unions.

The commitment, delivered in testimony by Bishop Daniel P. Reilly of Worcester on behalf of the state's four bishops, was made as the Legislature considers several bills that would make same-sex marriage or civil unions the law of the Commonwealth.

Although Reilly reiterated the church's longheld position that "we cannot support" any bill seeking to alter the definition of marriage, his testimony appeared to signal a new openness on the part of church leaders to take a role in crafting legislation to create some form of domestic-partner benefits that leave the state's marriage laws untouched.

"We should consider the question of distributive justice on its own terms," Reilly said, reading from a prepared statement, one of dozens delivered at a crowded State House hearing yesterday. "If a bill alters marriage's definition or changes the meaning of spouse, we cannot support it. If the goal is to look at individual benefits and determine who should be eligible beyond spouses, then we will join the discussion."

After the hearing, Reilly appeared to go beyond his scripted testimony in an interview with reporters. "There should be a way for the state to provide the benefits they have a right to like other citizens," he said. "But just to put the title of marriage on it, I think that's the wrong way to go."

Contacted afterward, several church leaders were quick to point out that Reilly's extemporaneous comments did not reflect the official, carefully worded position of the four Massachusetts bishops. But they did not back away from the scripted testimony.

Daniel Avila, associate director for policy and research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the church's lobbying arm, said Reilly's official testimony represented nothing new and did not signal a shift in church policy. Avila emphasized that the church remains opposed to putting gay or heterosexual domestic partners on an equal legal footing with married couples and that "it would be mischaracterizing our position to report that what was said today was in any way supportive of domestic partnerships."

The church has opposed legislation that would create domestic partner benefits because the efforts, in the church's view, equated the partnerships to marriages between men and women.

"Our position has been consistent," Avila said. "Up until this point, we have always opposed specific bills dealing with domestic partnership because they were enmeshed in the same problem as civil union bills. They always attempted to equate a domestic partner with a spouse, and therefore we could not support it. It brought in an unrelated issue that brought larger issues in. As the bishop said today, we can join the discussion if a bill does not equate a partner as a spouse. How it is accomplished is crucial."

A spokesman for the Boston Archdiocese, the Rev. Christopher Coyne, echoed Avila's position, saying the church is primarily interested in extending benefits that affect education and health matters in gay families with children. Such benefits would be unrelated to the institution of marriage, he said.

"I think what's actually being said is that the benefits that are necessary for the protection of children and families don't necessarily involve any kind of a redefinition of relationship or marital status," Coyne said.

Still, it was unclear yesterday what exact benefits church officials were referring to when Reilly discussed a willingness to talk about "individual benefits." Reilly could not be reached for comment last night.

As if highlighting the seeming confusion over the issue, the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, a lay organization, submitted testimony vigorously opposing benefits to same-sex couples.

"Proposals to grant legal recognition and tax-funded benefits to so-called civil unions are, far from being a compromise, merely an incremental tactic," said the league's director, C. J. Doyle.

Of the bills being considered yesterday, one would create same-sex marriages, with all of the benefits and rights enjoyed by heterosexual spouses. Three other similar bills would create civil unions, which would allow a more limited list of benefits.

None of the bills discussed at the Joint Judiciary Committee hearing dealt with domestic-partnership benefits exclusively, only as part of broader efforts to create marriages or civil unions. However, the Joint Public Service Committee could hold a hearing in the near future on bill that would grant domestic-partner rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples alike. That bill would only grant such benefits to public-sector workers, however.

Senator Cheryl Jacques, a Needham Democrat who shares parenting responsibilities with a same-sex partner, has coauthored many of the bills under consideration, and she said she was encouraged by the statements of the Catholic leaders she heard at the hearing.

"I always welcome communication to make progress," Jacques said. "I would welcome from the bishop or other officials support of the pending domestic partnership or civil union bills, but there will not be an exchange of support in which we compromise our civil rights. . . . If there is a change, that's wonderful."

Gay and lesbian rights advocates said they, too, were uncertain how to interpret Reilly's testimony. On the one hand, it seemed to go farther than anything said lately by Bay State Catholic leaders, such as Boston Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley, who earlier this month warned that "the institution of marriage . . . is in crisis." O'Malley has not directly joined the Beacon Hill debate over gay rights or marriage, but at a conference earlier this month he stated that "people of homosexual orientation should be treated with every respect and with compassion, and their rights should be defended."

Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said: "It could be the same old same old, a willingness to grant benefits to individuals and not to couples or families. It could also be a good indicator that they are changing their views. But I suspect they haven't at all."

"I'd be very surprised but thrilled if they wanted to allow us equal protection under the law," Isaacson continued. "Historically, that hasn't been the case."