There is something off-base about this week's public debate over a proposed state law that would require religious institutions to file an annual fiscal report with the Attorney General. All non-profits would be required to disclose their real estate holdings, according to reports from the State House News Service

The bill has passed, 33-4 in the Senate, and on Wednesday it was scheduled to be debated in the House. The State House was the scene of a large rally by supporters of the measure, but at press time there had been no vote yet taken on the bill.

The proposed law seems rooted in a direct assault against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, and by extension Catholic dioceses throughout the state&emdash;a payback to church leaders for their inept, some would say criminal actions surrounding the clergy pedophile scandals.

"What this bill is attempting to do is to say that religious organizations are not a specially defined group of organizations, that they are essentially public charities," said Rep. Byron Rushing (D-South End). He said that institutions of worship should not be viewed under the law as equivalent to Little Leagues, and that the legislation is "fundamentally unconstitutional."

A proponent of the bill, Attorney General Thomas Reilly said he has not yet reviewed the legislation, but in general believes that all religious institutions should disclose their finances to congregational members.

"These are the people that are giving money to their church and contributing to their church and the finances of their church should be made available to them," Reilly told reporters. "I do believe that churches should disclose their finances to their members."

Yet a disclosure to church members falls far short of a full reporting requirement to the state. Church leaders say that, beyond the constitutional issues, the proposal would place an unfair and excessive financial burden on them.

The bottom line here remains that people who belong to a church have the right to give their moneys to that church, or withhold it- it's their choice. They also can- and should- ask their own questions of just how those funds are used.

But the thought that such information, once made public through filings with state government, could be used by persons with political motivations is a circumstance that is quite worrisome.

Dorchester State Rep. Marie St. Fleur said this week that she thinks the bill is a bad idea, and she planned to take to the floor of the House to make her opposition known.

The principle at stake here, curiously, parallels one that has prompted many lawmakers to take a firm and fair stand against Catholic church teaching on matters like gay marriage. Churches have the right to refuse to marry anyone, for any reason and few would argue that they should not have that privilege. Membership in the church is voluntary, after all. The state, equal marriage proponents rightly argue, should not discriminate against individuals who choose to wed their loved one in a civil setting- or in one of the many churches that do sanction same-sex unions. For the state to do otherwise, as our own Supreme Court has established clearly, is simply unconstitutional.

It's too bad that the Catholic Church and some other faith denominations seem unwilling to cede the same rights to individuals in our society that they cherish so dearly for themselves. This might be a good moment for the religious groups so fervently intent on overturning the gay marriage decision to reflect on just why the separation of church and state is so important.

Nevertheless, two wrongs do not make a right. Rep. St. Fleur and the opponents of this week's disclosure bill have it right: Keep the state out of church affairs. And vice versa.

- Ed Forry