Centuries ago, John Locke, a devout Christian and one of the most well-known advocates of religious toleration, wrote that, “No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it.” His vision of a civil society in which the state does not prioritize one set of beliefs over another proved to be quite appealing to the founding fathers of America, particularly those residing in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Last Saturday, none other than the Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney jeopardized Locke’s vision as he announced that he would file a bill that would exempt religious groups from a Massachusetts law designed to prevent discrimination against gays, arguing that this law violates the religious freedom of Catholics.

Romney’s move is the latest episode of the Catholic Charities saga currently unfolding in Boston. Licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Catholic Charities has been providing vital adoption services for abandoned and endangered children with special needs. Recently, Massachusetts bishops have been confronted with the difficult decision of whether or not to prohibit same-sex couples from adopting, in accordance with Pope John Paul II’s decree that the adoption of children by homosexual couples is a “gravely immoral form of violence that places children in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.” Knowing that discriminating against same-sex couples would cause Catholic charities to lose their state licenses, the bishops announced that they would seek an exemption from the state’s anti-discrimination law that would allow them to continue arranging adoptions “in a way that does not conflict with Catholic teaching and practice.” In other words, by discriminating against gays.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Pope John Paul II, granting Catholic Charities an exemption from this law would directly violate one of the basic principles of a civil society mandating that every citizen is subject to the law.

Romney argues that this law is a “threat to religious freedom.” Apparently, denying gays and lesbians children is such a vital tenet of the Catholic faith that forbidding them to do so is tantamount to restricting their religious liberty. As a protestant, it is not my place to judge what is or should be most important to catholics, so I will not dispute this assertion.

But I will remind all those in favor of granting religious exemptions of the Supreme Court decision Employment v. Smith. In it, the Court decided to punish two Native Americans who smoked peyote in religious rituals because granting exemptions to drug law on the basis of religion “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” While this ruling would not necessarily be applicable to Massachusetts State law, the principle is still relevant. If Massachusetts concedes to Catholic charities, it will have to consider granting exemptions to other religious groups seeking exemptions from compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, child neglect laws, and drug use—a disastrous scenario that will lead to the state having to evaluate the legitimacy and sincerity of different religions.

Furthermore, allowing religious groups and individuals exemptions from a reasonable civil law is discriminatory to non-religious organizations and individuals. While religious people can claim that being subjected to a certain law is against their most deeply held religious convictions, atheists cannot raise such an argument in order to seek exemption from a law. An adamantly anti-homosexual adoption agency with no religious affiliation would not be able to seek the same exemption sought by Catholic charities but would rather have to attempt to articulate a secular reason why they cannot place children in same-sex homes. Would said homophobic adoption agency be exempted from the Massachusetts anti-discrimination law? I think not.

I can understand the sentiments of people who support Romney’s proposal out of their concern for the children who are caught in the middle of this mess. While many of them might support the right of gays to adopt children, they are not so adamant to defend this right if it means that abandoned, endangered children will not be able to find homes as a result of Catholic Charities losing their license. But considering that Catholic Charities arrange an average of 37 adoptions per year, it seems possible that these adoptions can be arranged through other adoption agencies in the state.

My heart goes out to those children whose quest for a warm home might be temporarily put on hold, and I pray that eventually they will be welcomed by kind and loving parents. But I cannot ignore the larger, disastrous implications of granting Catholic Charities an exemption from the anti-discrimination law, an important law that guarantees homosexual individuals the same rights enjoyed by everyone else. Doing so discriminates against other religious groups that might have appealed for exemptions from the law and have been denied, and it constitutes a slap in the face for my atheist friends who can never use religion as an excuse to be placed above the law. Worst of all, granting Catholic Charities this exemption would render the state vulnerable to countless appeals for religious exemptions, placing them in a disastrous position of having to evaluate different religions. As Locke delineated, such evaluations are hypocritical for a country founded on religious impartiality.

Loui Itoh ’07 is a government and comparative study of religion concentrator in Quincy House. Her column appears on alternate Wednesdays.