Now, lets look at some details.  In March 21, 2006, the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed Resolution 168-08, which condemns the teachings of the Roman Catholic church and their religious preference for heterosexual adoptions over gay adoptions.  In part, the resolution reads,

WHEREAS, 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…

RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges the Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of the Congregational for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican (formerly known as the Holy Office of the INquisition), 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.

In response to this governmental edict, World Net Daily reported 2 years ago that a lawsuit was filed to protect the Roman Catholic church from this government effort to establish their brand of religion (or more precisely the board’s brand of anti-religion).

The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center brought the lawsuit on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two San Francisco Catholic citizens.

They are challenging the resolution as a “startling attack by government officials on the Catholic Church, Catholic moral teaching and beliefs, and those who adhere to the tenets of the Catholic faith, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said the “demagoguery and virulent words of this resolution are reminiscent of the anti- Catholic bigotry of the Ku Klux Klan and the Know Nothings, which marred our nation’s earlier history.”

“San Francisco may as well have put up signs at the city limits: ‘Faithful Catholics Not Welcomed,” he said.

Two years have passed since San Francisco passed this discriminatory resolution and now the first ruling has come in.  The decision of this California judge is not a surprise, but it is troubling.

The anti-Catholic diatribe had 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.

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. 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.

This decision is worth noting because it opens the door for religious persecution from state, local or Federal governments. 

On July 31, 2008, Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and I believe his argument is Constitutionally far superior. He will argue,

“Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith,” he said.

“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 argued 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.”

No one can predict how this will end up, but I am sure it will reach the US Supreme Court.  In the meantime, there are glimpeses of a potential future in other cases.  Canada, which of course does not have a Constitution that protects religion from the intrusive controls of government, has already moved to silence religious free speech. Ezra Levant reports about a recent case where a pastor was banned for life from speaking or writing, even privately, about homosexuality in any negative ways.

Lori Andreachuk, was the human rights commissioner who issued a Stalinist order telling Rev. Boissoin that he not only was banned — for life — from criticizing homosexuality, even in sermons or private e-mails, but that he had to positively renounce his faith in the local newspaper.

This case from our neighbor to the North seems to be a precurser for other instances of US state governments violating the Constitution. In Colorado, there is a pending suit against a law that ostensibly bans the Bible. In Michigan, a gay man is suing a publisher of the Bible for $70 million dollars because their translation has caused him emotional distress.

A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.

Every American, no matter your political, personal or religious persuasion, should be concerned about laws and “resolutions” that use the power of the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of the government to discard the freedom of religious practice.  Be warned!  The diminution of some rights will lead to the diminution of all rights.

As a Christian, I hasten to add that these actions by our human government should in no way cause us to fear for our future.  We should not rely on government agencies or Lawyers to “save” us.   Our fight is not to protect the Constitution, but to advance the Kingdom.  The battle ahead is not against “gay” activism, but against the spiritual powers that seek to undermine the Gospel.  My goal here is not to raise the hackles of political activism, but to highlight a cultural shift that validates the erosion of certain Constitutional rights.  The above cited cases will determine the course of American faith for decades to come and we, as Christians, must be ready to stand firm and keep our trust in Jesus Christ alone for our freedom and hope.

1. ACTION ALERT: Your Freedom Can Never Be Lost!
2. Laws Demonstrate Immorality; Not Goodness

Related Posts:

• Should Obama be Shunned? Please share your opinion!
• A Prayer For My President–Barack Obama
• What do Communist Chinese and American Secularists have in Common?
• The Home is No Place for Church
• ACTION ALERT “Your Freedom Can NEVER be Lost!”
• Social Justice and the Christian Church