Results 1 to 1 of 1
#1 "Them San Francisco Queers Are Playing Hardball With Freedom Of Religion !"
07-29-2008, 04:15 PM
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
San Francisco Court Debates Religions’ Right to Oppose ‘Gay’ Adoption
"Someone Should Tell These Fags The Whole Place Is Named For A Catholic Saint !"
- Was a resolution by the city of San Francisco condemning the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality a violation of the U.S. Constitution or an expression of free speech? Oral arguments on this issue will be heard Wednesday by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The debate is a result of Resolution 168-06, which was passed unanimously on March 21, 2006, by the
board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco and which urged the archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy church directives.
The document called on Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, to withdraw his “discriminatory and defamatory directive” that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.
According to Catholic teaching, children should not be adopted by homosexual couples, because it does violence to them in the sense that the same-sex environment is not conducive to the children’s full human development. A child has a right to a mother and a father, and non-natural promotion of other “family” orders is not proper.
In addition, the March 21, 2006, resolution
alluded to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the city and described the church’s moral teaching as
“insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “insulting and callous,” “defamatory” and “absolutely unacceptable.”
William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said in a news release on March 22, 2006, that the board, “which has long shown its affinity for the radical gay agenda, has now demonstrated that it has nothing but contempt for the First Amendment provisions on religious liberty and the establishment of religion.”
Last edited by megimoo; 07-29-2008 at 04:20 PM.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|