“Federal Judge Says San Francisco’s Labeling of Catholics as ‘Hateful’ is Constitutional”
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.
Technorati Tags:adoption, Catholic, constitution, homosexuality, religious freedom, San Francisco, separation of church and state
“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 West Coast “Walk for Life” will be held in San Fran on January 20th, 2007. It will be the third year for this event and is a great opportunity to show a Pro-life message in the heart of ever so liberal and tolerant San Francisco. I recall seeing one of the city officials during last year’s walk participating in the counter demonstration.
“District Judge Patel, a Carter appointee and one time counsel for the National Organization for Women (NOW)….”
And we expected what from Her Honor with such a snakey background and especially in that notorious court district? I assume that this ruling like so many others from that Land That Time Forgot will be overturned.
Please, do not hurl electronic stones my way, but the judge probably got it right. The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law” about the pratice of religion. I strongly suspect that she did not use the reasoning that the Supervisors are not Congress and therefore the resolution is not covered, but a strict, “conservative” reading would lend itself to that finding.
I think we should give the judge a pass, but how about impeaching the SF Board of Supervisors.
To DGS,
Unfortunately the judge did not get that right, and neither did you. You misqoute one of the most misquoted sections of the constitution. The full text reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Pretty sure that this bill or movement, or whatever thing it’s called is in some part prohibiting our religion. The fallacy of “seperation of church and state” stems from this part of the constitution and is held by most lawmakers to trickle down to all government. Hence, rediculous laws regarding minorah’s and nativity sets, etc. While I agree on your supposed action against the SF Board, the judge should be held responsible. This decision was more than likely handed down by the 9th circuit, which is notoriously liberal. They simply have no respect for precident, the constituion, or any kind of laws for that matter.
Marc,
I know the text and interpret it at face value. You are correct in that the idea the “seperation of church and state” as commonly bandied about is a falacy. My point is that the first amendment places limits on Congress with respect to religion and should be read as doing just that. It does not extend to the board. It is a misreading of the amendment that got us to no prayer in public schools. The courts read “Congress” and incorrectly extended that to all levels of government. A plain reading of the text does not place any restriction on a municipal body.
This is a matter of a bunch of lefties throwing a fit about the church recognizing and understanding what God has revealed. They did not say we cannnot be Catholic or stop us from believing what we believe or worshiping as we do. They just said they do not like it. Their problem is with a rather higher power than any of us.