Federal Judge Says San Francisco's Labeling of Catholics as "Hateful" is Constitution

[Imagine23]

Ignoring the flamebait language, you’re still wrong. The burden of proof rests with whomever makes a claim. For example:

Where’s the evidence for this claim? Please present the hard data showing that children raised by a homosexual couple are not disadvantaged compared to those raised by a married heterosexual couple.

You do have hard data to back up your assertion, don’t you?

– Mark L. Chance.

You said “the burden of proof rests with whomever makes a claim.” Well the Church opened up this issue with their claim that placing children with gays “does violence to them.” I will therefore let you go first in letting you prove this claim.

 

[Imagine23]

I haven’t explained the Big Bang, either, or written a paper on String Theory. The issue here is the anti-Catholic action of a city government, not a sociological experiment.

It is Church policy though, so I though maybe you would be able to defend it or provide some support for it.

 

[mlchance]

You said “the burden of proof rests with whomever makes a claim.” Well the Church opened up this issue with their claim that placing children with gays “does violence to them.” I will therefore let you go first in letting you prove this claim.

Hard data to the contrary, it is abundant and readily available. Start here for a survey of available data. I can easily go into specifics, but somehow I doubt there’d be any point to it given your obvious bigotry against the Church.

So, now, where’s hard data that children placed with a homosexual couple aren’t disadvantaged as compared to those raised by a married heterosexual couple? You do have such hard data, don’t you? Surely you’re not just engaging in sophistry?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The court does mention free speech once in the last page of the opinion, but that is not the test they apply and their decision does not rest on it.

The court lays out the three part test to be used in accordance with United States Supreme Court precedent on page 5 to decide this issue, which is whether a state actor violated the Establishment Clause. The test looks at whether the action (1) has a secular purpose; (2) has a primary effect which neither inhibits nor advances religion; and (3) does not foster excessive entanglement with religion.

I know that you would like the court to come out the other way because you have some unsubstantiated misconceptions about the ability of gays to be parents, but this really is the only outcome that makes sense under the law.

And the court is dead wrong. Not only does the First Amendment right to freedom of speech not apply to government, the primary effect of this resolution most certainly does inhibit religion – it asserts a secular primacy over a religious belief. It naturally also fosters excessive entanglement with religion, by it’s chilling effect on the free exercise of religion.

The city’s action is a direct attack on religion, pure and simple.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is Church policy though, so I though maybe you would be able to defend it or provide some support for it.

Can you offer evidence the Church is wrong? Show how your opinions outweigh the Magisterium.

 

[Valke2]

The court does mention free speech once in the last page of the opinion, but that is not the test they apply and their decision does not rest on it.

The court lays out the three part test to be used in accordance with United States Supreme Court precedent on page 5 to decide this issue, which is whether a state actor violated the Establishment Clause. The test looks at whether the action (1) has a secular purpose; (2) has a primary effect which neither inhibits nor advances religion; and (3) does not foster excessive entanglement with religion.

I know that you would like the court to come out the other way because you have some unsubstantiated misconceptions about the ability of gays to be parents, but this really is the only outcome that makes sense under the law.

Can you post a link to the decision?

 

[Valke2]

And the court is dead wrong. Not only does the First Amendment right to freedom of speech not apply to government, the primary effect of this resolution most certainly does inhibit religion – it asserts a secular primacy over a religious belief. It naturally also fosters excessive entanglement with religion, by it’s chilling effect on the free exercise of religion.

The city’s action is a direct attack on religion, pure and simple.

It does not have a chilling effect on the free execrise of religion, any more than the law allowing the sale of condoms does. (From what I’ve been able to read of the decision). Moreover, I’m not sure what the purpose is of the “law” that was upheld. It does not require the Church to do anything or refrain from doing anything, does it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It does not have a chilling effect on the free execrise of religion, any more than the law allowing the sale of condoms does. (From what I’ve been able to read of the decision). Moreover, I’m not sure what the purpose is of the “law” that was upheld. It does not require the Church to do anything or refrain from doing anything, does it?

Aside from repeating the old canard that Catholics are somehow agents of a foreign government, it is a signal to all in city government that discrimination against Catholics is okay.

My advice wouild be for Catholics in San Francisco to apply for city jobs, and for those with city jobs to apply for promotions – and actually measure the extent of the anti-Catholic discrimination this vicious measure has created.

 

[Valke2]

The 2000 U. S. Census reports 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households already have at least one child under the age of 1 living at home.

According to the American Psychological Association Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children, "there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning.
gaylife.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=gaylife&cdn=people&tm=102&gps=253_431_1020_592&f=20&su=p284.21.140.ip_p284.2.420.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (from same link)

There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is linked to one’s environment. In other words, growing up in a gay couple household will not “make” a child gay. gaylife.about.com/od/naturevsnurture/i/naturevsnurture_2.htm

According to The Sydney Morning Herald, only 50,000 of the 120,000 children available for adoption in recent years (in Australia) have found homes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Those who applaud the violation of someone else’s constitutional rights will find themselves without allies when their own rights are violated.

 

[Imagine23]

It does not have a chilling effect on the free execrise of religion, any more than the law allowing the sale of condoms does. (From what I’ve been able to read of the decision). Moreover, I’m not sure what the purpose is of the “law” that was upheld. It does not require the Church to do anything or refrain from doing anything, does it?

You’re right. No, the resolution simply encouraged the Cardinal sitting in the Vatican that oversees what was formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition to not issue directives that discriminate arbitrarily against its residents (San Francisco). That is why the case was such a no-brainer to dismiss.

The directive that the city is referring to is one that stated that Catholic Church’s performing adoption placement should not place kids with homosexuals because it “would do violence to them”. The court did not go into an analyisis of the Church’s claim and it doesn’t seem that any evidence on the issue was presented. I’ve pressed people here for evidence that placing kids with gays “does violence to them” but nobody has any to offer. Their usual response is another question back to me.

 

[hoosiertoo]

This is a horrible analogy and completely misses the point. The city is not condemning Catholics for their Catholicism it is condemning the discriminatory policy of Catholics regarding the adoption of children by Gay people.

So?

Gay people shouldn’t adopt.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

You’re right. No, the resolution simply encouraged the Cardinal sitting in the Vatican that oversees what was formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition to not issue directives that discriminate arbitrarily against its residents (San Francisco).

Please use the proper name. It is the The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith not what you called it.

 

[geezerbob]

Please use the proper name. It is the The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith not what you called it.

Agreed. Somebody is getting close to the line with his blatant disrespect for the teachings of the Church, which, incidentally, have been around a lot longer than the city of San Francisco.

 

[Valke2]

I’m surprised the Church issued such a directive. If nothing else, I though it viewed the act, not the person, as a sin. Has it issued similar directives against people who lie, or who don’t go to Church or confession? What about people who don’t love their neighbor? Are the prohibitied from adopting?

 

[estesbob]

I’m surprised the Church issued such a directive. If nothing else, I though it viewed the act, not the person, as a sin. Has it issued similar directives against people who lie, or who don’t go to Church or confession? What about people who don’t love their neighbor? Are the prohibitied from adopting?

The answer is yes. the Church will not place a child with someone who is living a sinful life. That is why extensive background checks are done on anyone who wants to adopt. They will not, BTW, place a child with a man and a woman who are living togehter and not married

 

[estesbob]

You’re right. No, the resolution simply encouraged the Cardinal sitting in the Vatican that oversees what was formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition to not issue directives that discriminate arbitrarily against its residents (San Francisco). That is why the case was such a no-brainer to dismiss.

The directive that the city is referring to is one that stated that Catholic Church’s performing adoption placement should not place kids with homosexuals because it “would do violence to them”. The court did not go into an analyisis of the Church’s claim and it doesn’t seem that any evidence on the issue was presented. I’ve pressed people here for evidence that placing kids with gays “does violence to them” but nobody has any to offer. Their usual response is another question back to me.

cnsnews.com/Commentary/Archive/200202/COM20020225f.html

Of course the fact that children are better off being raised by a man and a woman is self evident to everyone other than those who want to put their politicl agenda aherad of the well being of children.

 

[tee_eff_em]

If you’d like to read the comments in context, they are Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons.

(NB this is not a document issued under the authority of William Cardinal Levada, but under his predecessor, then Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI – Oh yeah if some random city government (especially a foreign city government) recommended to me that I reverse my boss’s policy, yeah: I’d be all over that )

tee

 

[Imagine23]

cnsnews.com/Commentary/Archive/200202/COM20020225f.html

Of course the fact that children are better off being raised by a man and a woman is self evident to everyone other than those who want to put their politicl agenda aherad of the well being of children.

Thanks for the link to another very typical “Christian” anti-gay propaganda piece. A lot of radical statments are made within it that aren’t substantiated by facts.

Even if some of the vicious allegations in it were true (and there is no evidence suggesting they are), what would they have to do with parenting?

Black have a higher incidence of HIV infection in this country. Does that mean we shouldn’t place children with black parents?

The fact of being heterosexual has nothing to do with whether someone will be a good parent. If it were a factor, there wouldn’t be heterosexual child abusers. It is simply irrelevant, as being left-handed is irrelevant to whether one would be a good parent.

 

[Imagine23]

cnsnews.com/Commentary/Archive/200202/COM20020225f.html

Of course the fact that children are better off being raised by a man and a woman is self evident to everyone other than those who want to put their politicl agenda aherad of the well being of children.

I think it is also funny that the propaganda piece you posted mentions the alleged promiscuity of gays. Consider that over half of heterosexual unions end in divorce and the very high rate of heterosexual adultery.