Posted on 12/13/2006 2:48:58 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Urges Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities to defy Church directives on adoptions by homosexuals
SAN FRANCISCO, December 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In March of this year the City of San Francisco issued one of the most startling attacks on the Catholic Church coming from a governmental body in the United States in half a century. The governing body of the city of San Francisco - the Board of Supervisors - voted unanimously to approve a resolution blasting the Catholic Church for its opposition to homosexual adoption. That resolution has been deemed "constitutional" by Federal Judge Marily Hall Patel, in a recent ruling which is being appealed by the Thomas More Law Center.
The resolution attacked the teaching of the Catholic Church that homosexual adoption does "violence" to children since they would be placed in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. The resolution blasted the teaching as "hateful and discriminatory rhetoric (that) is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors.''
District Judge Patel, a Carter appointee and one time counsel for the National Organization for Women (NOW), ruled that the Board resolution which, in addition to condemning Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality, urged the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church directives, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is appealing the federal judge's recent approval of the virulently anti-Catholic resolution.
Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the matter, commented, "Our constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith. In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power now has the backing of a federal judge. This battle, however, is far from over. We are appealing this offensive ruling."
The Law Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear the appeal.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, observed, "This judge totally ignored or attempted to rationalize the evocative rhetoric and venom of the resolution which are sad reminders of Catholic baiting by the Ku Klux Klan."
Continued Thompson, "Federal judges across the country are removing passive religious symbols, such as the crèche and the display of the Ten Commandments, from the public square because these innocent symbols supposedly express an official government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. However, when San Francisco passes an overtly, anti-Catholic resolution expressly attacking Church moral teaching and calling on Church leaders to defy Church teaching as a matter of official government policy, a federal judge gives these anti-Catholic bigots a free pass. Unfortunately, this case amply demonstrates the anti-religious bias that pervades our judicial system."
The Law Center's lawsuit claimed that the City's anti-Catholic resolution violated the First Amendment, which "forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general." The Law Center argued that the "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to Plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, favored members of the political community."
In her decision upholding the resolution against the Law Center's constitutional challenge, the federal judge defended the City by essentially claiming that the Church invited the attack by publicly expressing its teaching on moral issues. In her written opinion, the judge stated, "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement, by its [doctrinal] statement. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of this provocation."
I'm pretty shocked that the reasoning of the judge was based on the premise that the church had it coming because the church expressed its teaching on moral issues. Now what is the primary purpose of a church in this judges mind?
Don't look in the mirror much?
So much for the right of a Church to excercize religious expression. Of course it will soon be a criminal offense to express Christian beliefs.
San Francisco is out of touch with Americans.
pretty scary.
It's pretty stunning - but it's SF. Anybody know how the archbishop has responded (if at all)? Pretty soon the courts are going to go after Catholics, Orthodox and certain Evangelical and Mormon groups without even pretending to consider the constitutionality of such moves, because the courts feel now more than ever that they are really the ones in charge.
This is going to end up with SCOTUS, if the 9th Circuit is next.
When is the Big One supposed to hit? /s
Don't worry. This will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. /sarcasm
But labeling homosexuality immoral is thoughtcrime. Despite thousands of years of such beliefs.
Regardless of my personal differences with Roman Catholicism, this is a Constitutional issue of freedom to hold to one's religious tenets as protected by the Constitution, which if allowed to restrict Roman Catholicism's position on homosexuality and adoption(which happens to be one area I agree with Roman Catholicism on) then other Christian faiths will soon have the same, or worse restrictions placed on them.
But then again, some persecution might not be a bad thing, for it would separate the wheat from the chaff.
Unless the San Francisco Board of Supervisors did something more than say mean things, the Constitution wasn't violated in any way.
True, but give them a little more time. "Hate speech" is a growth industry.
The big fire in the Oakland, CA Hills? Well, she demanded Oakland Firefighters preferentially go in to save HER house. She was told to go pound sand.
Additionally:
WOMEN, BLACKS, BENEFICIARIES OF STEEL FIRM'S SETTLEMENT", Contra Costa Times, Monday, September 9, 1998, page 3A.
Women and black people who were discouraged from applying to a Richmond steel company are entitled to part of a $2.8 million settlement, a U.S. District court judge has ruled.
Judge Marilyn Hall Patel gave final approval Friday to the settlement against Marwais Steel and its Richmond Companies, Pinole Point Steel and its Colorstrip division. Colorstrip division is now closed.
The Suit alleged that Marwais discouraged women and blacks from applying for unskilled labor positions in the company. Those who applied often were not hired, the class-action suit claimed.
This is the first part of the lawsuit, said attorney Donna M. Ryu. Black peopled hired by the company allege they worked in a racially hostile environment, and attorneys for the plaintiffs will argue that claim Sept. 17 in U.S. District Court.
The settlement Patel approved will require the company to establish hiring goals for women and black people, provide employee training and hire a monitor.
...
Contra Costa Times, July 17, 1996 -- filing -- NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT:
TO: ALL WOMEN AND AFRICAN-AMERICANS WHO APPLIED, ATTEMPTED TO APPLY, OR WERE DISCOURAGED FROM APPLYING FOR LABORER, MATERIAL HANDLER OR PRODUCTION WORKER JOBS AT MARWAIS STEEL COMPANY, PINOLE POINT STEEL COMPANY, OR COLORSTRIP DIVISION OF PINOLE POINT STEEL COMPANY: YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE MONEY AS A RESULT OF A PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CLASS ACTION LITIGATION. THIS NOTICE DESCRIBES YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS, PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
***
CLAIM FORM REQUEST: Adams, et al. v. Pinole Point Steel Co., et al.>
*** Every single newspaper in the San Francisco Bay Area had these nearly full page "ads".
She is the judge who imposed CONSENT DECREES (quotas) on the San Francisco Fire Department.
To create social justice programs that serve the poor and afflicted (which reduce government responsibility) and to "minister" to homosexuals.
"Ministering to homosexuals" == giving them "spiritual" guidance while telling them that the gay lifestyle is completely consistent with the Gospel
</sarcastic rant>
So much for the so-called 'separation of church and state'.
Dr. Raoul -- please see my posts 15 and 16 below. You want to know the roots of what turned San Francisco into the hateful pit? This is the judge. The "one".
No other church exists, to Judge Patel, except the courtroom. That is her church.
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.