Posted on 04/30/2007 12:10:50 PM PDT by NYer
Was the San Francisco Board of Supervisors constitutionally justified in passing an explicitly anti-Catholic resolution, adopted March 21, 2006, which labeled the Vatican a “foreign country” whose moral teachings are “hateful,” “insulting and callous,” and “insulting to all San Franciscans”?
In December, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel said it was. Last week, the Thomas More Law Center filed a brief with the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco appealing Patel’s ruling.
The 2006 resolution, which called on the archbishop to “defy” the Church’s teachings and described Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as “unqualified” to lead, was a reaction to the Church’s opposition to adoptions by homosexual couples.
Judge Patel, appointed to the federal bench in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter and former counsel for the National Organization for Women, ruled that the Board of Supervisors’ resolution urging the Catholic archbishop of San Francisco to ignore his Church’s teachings, did not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment, prohibits the government from interfering with the free practice of religion – or favoring one religion over another. The Thomas More Law Center says the Supervisors’ resolution sends a clear message that Catholics are not welcome as members of the San Francisco political community.
“Judge Patel clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church,” said Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center. In her ruling, the judge claimed that the Church “provoked” the Board of Supervisors by voicing its moral teaching, and that the Board reacted “responsibly” by adopting its resolution, which called Catholic beliefs “defamatory,” “absolutely unacceptable,” “insensitive,” and “ignorant.”
The week after the anti-Catholic resolution, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted, again unanimously, to condemn some 25,000 Evangelical teens who had gathered in the city to express their opposition to homosexual conduct. Openly gay San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno said the Christian teenagers were “obnoxious” and “disgusting” and “should not be tolerated.” He told the Christian group to “get out of San Francisco!”
“My concern is that, if the judge’s ruling is allowed to stand, it will further embolden the San Francisco Board in its anti-Christian attacks,” said Thompson.
“Our constitution plainly forbids government hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith,” said Thomas More Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling the Ninth Circuit appeal. “In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists have misused the instruments of government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power now has the backing of a federal judge."
The Catholic Church teaches that allowing homosexuals to adopt children does violence to the children by placing them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. The Church finds such policies gravely immoral, and forbids Catholic organizations from placing children for adoption in homosexual households.
The 11-member San Francisco Board of Supervisors is the legislative branch for both the city and county of San Francisco.
Wonder if San Franciscans ever remember just WHOM founded the city...
OH OKAY just wondering
I thought so it was deacon but wasn’t sure
The persecution and repression of Christians has to start somewhere, and I guess San Fransisco is as logical a place as any.
Here’s something related to your post -
did you know that “Secular Humanism” is a recognized religion when it comes to the “free exercise” clause, but not (according to the 9th Circus) for the “establishment” clause?
Next time some Clymer tells you "he votes for the person, not the party," remind the stupid SOB of how many Jimmy Carter Jerk Judges are still screwing this country up. If you ever meet a Ross Perot supporter, tell him the same thing, followed by a swift kick to his Democrat enabling region.
How did such a beautiful city become so infested with
such ugly people?
“I once dropped a quarter when in San Francisco. I left it there and walked on.”
LOL!!
Belated ping!
“Saint Francis must be rolling in his grave..........”
Yeah, and let’s dump that bigoted name while we’re at it ... J. Patel
It’s a little technical, but I thought I’d let you know.
He was an amazing man and has been called (by, I think, Pope Leo XIII) the greatest saint next to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
City by the Gay setting up to be city in the bay. Beware that earthquakes have rights too....
Nancy Pelosi’s district. Sounds about right. I’m sure she supports this resolution.
It is a violation of the free exercise clause, not the establishment clause, I think.
The famous San Francsico Chronicle columnist Herb Caen (in the 50’ & 60’s) refered to S.F. as Baghdad by the Bay. One of his unforgettaable lines was “Why is S.F. like granola? It’s full of fruits, flakes, & nuts.”
I must be Lysdexic ... I first read it as,
U.S. District Judge Marilyn Paul Hate all
Herb was a clever guy!
I once dropped my keys in San Fagsicko, I kicked them all the way to Sacramento.
Smug, Alex. It was a massive infestation of smug.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.