LANSING - An adoption bill passed by the House may do more than define the role of faith-based agencies.

The measure would allow agencies not to participate in an adoption that violates their religious or moral beliefs. It would also prohibit local or state governments from denying these organizations contracts or grants based on their beliefs.

Opponents claim it would cross the constitutional line separating church and state, while supporters say it would protect religious freedom.

The proposal, now awaiting Senate action, had support from some Democrats.

"Quite a few came over," said Rep. John Stahl, R-Arcadia Township, primary sponsor of the legislation. "I really think them knowing it's not based on any discrimination made them feel comfortable with it."

Stahl said he introduced the bill as a pre-emptive effort to protect faith-based organizations from being discriminated against because of their beliefs, such as refusing to place children in homes that violate those beliefs. The move was prompted by his becoming aware of licensing issues that could potentially threaten faith-based agencies' right to make such choices, he said.

"It's more of a response to the need rather than a reactionary," Stahl said. "This bill doesn't change any current practices, and it wouldn't violate anyone's right on the opposite (side). It's not targeting."

Jay Kaplan, a staff attorney for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, said the bill targets people.

"We are extremely disappointed in the state House," Kaplan said.  "With all the problems going on in Michigan, the answer is not to pass bills that allow state-sanctioned discrimination."

Kaplan said because the legislation allows religious beliefs to be a deciding factor in the placement of children, taxpayer money shouldn't be used to place adoptees through faith-based agencies.

"This is a very unprecedented walk into the line that separates church and state," she said. "This is just a way to permit discrimination and make sure taxpayers pay the bill."

In s 2002 Michigan case, a Catholic agency's license was put up for review because the agency was based on a faith, said Dave Maluchnik, communications director of the Michigan Catholic Conference, speaking on behalf of Michigan Catholic Social Services.

Maluchnik said the proposed legislation is a way to protect the right of faith-based organizations to act on their beliefs and maintain independence from the state.

"Our reason for supporting this legislation is to protect the religious freedom of faith-based agencies," he said. "There are number of child placement agencies across the state - a small number of them are run by the Catholic church - and we are seeking to protect our religion from state obstruction."

If the bill doesn't pass it would be a blatant violation of religious freedom and impair faith-based organizations' ability to operate, Maluchnik said.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm opposes the legislation because it would reduce the number of places available for foster care or adoption, said the governor's press secretary, Liz Boyd.

Another sponsor, Rep. Tom Pearce, R- Rockford, said the bill's intent is to allow all organizations to provide social services without compromising what they stand for.

"One of the concerns that was voiced during testimony are the activities that happen in states like Massachusetts," Pearce said.  "Catholic Social Services had to get out of placement services because they were asked to place children in homes they morally didn't agree with. Why not be proactive and try to put legislation in place that tries to prevent that?"

Pearce said he was aware of concerns about discrimination, but that isn't an issue  because Michigan has adoption agencies which have no problem placing children whom some faith-based organizations won't place. But Kaplan said the bill was created to discriminate, and not just on sexual orientation.

"If a particular religion believes children shouldn't be raised with a mother who works out of the home, it can refuse to make a placement," she said. "It can make discrimination in any number of ways."

Stahl said there is no reason all types of agencies can't work together, and the bill would make that possible.

"One shoe doesn't fit all and we know that," he said. "That is why there are a lot of agencies out there."