|
Ninth Circuit Decision Supporting Board’s Resolution
Against Catholics Promotes Policy of Gleichschaltung
Thursday, June 4,
2009
ANN ARBOR, MI – A
San Francisco City Board’s resolution virulently condemning the Catholic
Church because of its moral teachings on homosexuality does not violate
the Constitution’s prohibition of government hostility toward religion, so
says a panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The anti-Catholic resolution, adopted March 21, 2006, was challenged by
the Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian legal advocacy group
based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on behalf of the Catholic League and two
Catholic residents of San Francisco. The Board’s resolution refers to the
Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the City and
proclaims the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs on homosexuality as
“insulting to all San Franciscans, ” “hateful, ” “insulting and callous, ”
“defamatory, ” “absolutely unacceptable, ” “insensitive and ignoran.”
Click here to read the City’s resolution.
Click here to read the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.
 Richard
Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center remarked, “It is
not a stretch to compare the San Francisco Board’s actions to that of the
Nazi Germany policy of Gleichschaltung: vilifying Jews as an auxiliary too
and laying the groundwork for more repressive policies, including the
final solution of extermination. The policy of San Francisco is one of
totalitarian intolerance of Christians of all denominations who oppose
homosexual conduct. My concern is that if this ruling is allowed to
stand, it will further embolden anti-Christian attacks.”
The Thomas More Law
Center will seek en banc reconsideration (review by the full court) on
behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two
Catholic residents of San Francisco. If necessary, the case will be
brought to the United States Supreme Court.
 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 Board’s resolution went so far as to urge the Archbishop of
San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church
directives.
The unanimous
decision by the 9th Circuit panel did have an interesting concurrence from
Judge Berzon. In Judge Berzon’s concurring opinion, she states in part,
“All of that said, I do find the result troublesome, and find much to
agree with in Judge Noonan’s eloquent dissent in American Family. . . In
particular, I am acutely aware that ‘the Constitution assures religious
believers that units of government will not take positions that amount to
the establishment of a policy condemning their religious belief, ’ . . .
and that resolutions such as the ones in American Family and the one in
this case are near – if not at – the line that separates establishment of
such a policy.”
Thompson further
observed, “This dismissal was based on grounds that the pleadings failed
to state a claim under the rules of civil procedure. Although the panel
correctly posited the rule that they must accept all of Plaintiffs’
allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
Plaintiffs, the court totally ignored the rule in its opinion and drew all
inferences in favor the San Francisco including their intent in enacting
the resolution without allowing Plaintiffs to engage in any discovery.”
Robert Muise, the
Law Center attorney who argued the case, stated, “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 the government to attack the
Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power now has the backing of a
federal circuit court. This decision must be reversed. Unfortunately,
all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment
Clause cases.”
Click here to read the Law Center’s complaint filed on behalf of the
Catholic League against the City.
According to
Catholic doctrine, allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals would
actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their
condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that
is not conducive to their full human development. Such policies are
gravely immoral and Catholic organizations must not place children for
adoption in homosexual households.
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.”
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian
heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians,
time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a
strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of
America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation,
education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services.
The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals,
corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section
501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734)
827-2001 or visit our website at
www.thomasmore.org.
|
