Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1 Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church,"Dem Frisco Queers Are At Again ! 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Major Infested U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church,"!"

    San Francisco city and county board resolutionInstructs Catholic Church members to defy 'Holy Office of Inquisition'

    A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

    also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established" (Queer) "customs."

    It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."

    Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

    The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."

    The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."

    The anti-Catholic diatribe had previously been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds, but District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the city, saying, in essence, the church started it.
    "Freedom From Interferance By The Governmant In Maters Of Faith !"

    "Has She Ever Read Of The First Ammendment To The US Constitution ?"

    "Congress..(The Government ).. shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    She wrote in her decision, "The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement" for instructing Catholic politicians on how to vote.

    'Once Again She sticks her liberal New York nose into maters of faith !"

    "This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation."

    She ruled that the city's proclamation was not entangling the government in church affairs, since the resolution was a non-binding, non-regulatory announcement.

    Since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials even in their official capacity as representatives of the government can say what they want. "It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders," she wrote.

    Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel's decision.

    "Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church," he said in a news release. "The judge in her written decision held that the Church 'provoked the debate' by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded 'responsibly' to all of the 'terrible' things the Church was saying."

    Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. "Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," he said in a news release.

    "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 the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases," Muise said.

    Thomas More attorneys made the argument in the District Court case that the "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message" that Catholics are "outsiders, not full members of the political community."

    The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.

    Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.

    According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

    Openly gay California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

    The Chronicle also reported on a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carrying a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."

    The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion's views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.

    Currently, as WND has reported, the states of Colorado and Michigan are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as "hate speech" for it's condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal.
    Da Judge :
    "Another New York Liberal transplant to Queerly Beloved by the Bay !

    Judge Marilyn Hall Patel (born 1938) is an active judge presiding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. She was Chief District Judge of that jurisdiction from 1997 until 2004, and heard several notable cases during that time.

    Marilyn Hall was born in Amsterdam, New York. She obtained a BA from Wheaton College in 1959 and a Juris Doctor degree from Fordham University in 1963.

    From 1963 until 1967 she worked as an attorney in private practice in New York City. From 1967 until 1971 she was general counsel for the US Immigration and Naturalization Service in San Francisco. She then returned to private practice in San Francisco (during which time she was counsel for the National Organization for Women) before becoming adjunct professor of law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, where she remained until 1976. In 1976 she was appointed to the bench of the Municipal Court for the Oakland-Piedmont Judicial District, a position she held until 1980.

    On May 9, 1980, President Jimmy Carter nominated Judge Patel to fill the seat vacated by Lloyd Hudson Burke on the US District Court for Northern California. She was confirmed by the United States Senate in June of that year. She was the Chief District Judge for the Northern District from 1997 until 2004, and remains an active judge in that jurisdiction.
    Reply With Quote  

  2. #2  
    It will be interesting to see what happens to San Francisco over the next 10 years. They are already hand-wringing over the fact that families with young children, blacks, and Hispanics are fleeing the city. S.F. is rapidly becoming very white, very old, and very single. This is a perfect example of the "sorting" phenomena that is happening all over the country.
    Reply With Quote  

  3. #3  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    It will be interesting to see what happens to San Francisco over the next 10 years. They are already hand-wringing over the fact that families with young children, blacks, and Hispanics are fleeing the city. S.F. is rapidly becoming very white, very old, and very single. This is a perfect example of the "sorting" phenomena that is happening all over the country.

    Maybe St Francis Of Assisi will reclaim his namesake city in the guise of Catholic Mexican Liberators and change the name back to the original "La Villa Real de la Santa Fe de San Francisco de Assisi.
    It would be like an "Re_Enactment of Sodom and Gomorrah " with Volcanic fire
    and ash raining down from the heavens !
    Reply With Quote  

  4. #4  
    There are some complicated issues involved here, especially as pertains to gay foster and adoptive parents, but ultimately it is a free speech and separation of church/state issue.

    Gay people who want to adopt or foster kids don't have to go through church-based agencies to do so-there are other private agencies that are not church-based that they can go through, and there's the state agency. Catholic agencies help the state out by providing services to kids-whatever may be taught in individual churches shouldn't be confused with what services the state contracts with those agencies. For example, we put in our contracts that the (private) agency will not interfere with a kid's use of birth control. Our master contracts state that the private agencies can offer religious instruction to the kids they work with on a voluntary basis. The state can contract with the agency involved not to interfere with the kid's sexual orientation, either in a master contract or in an individual contract regarding a specific kid.

    Where I am confused is about CA's foster care system-if it is run by the state, why is the city council of San Francisco sticking their noses into it? The county may have some say-in Michigan, the counties administer the courts, jails, youth homes, etc., and they contribute some of the funding to the foster care program, so they get a say in it.
    Reply With Quote  

  5. #5  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Damn drama queens.
    Reply With Quote  

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts