A San Francisco Board of Supervisors resolution harshly critical of official Catholic teaching on adoption by same - sex couples crosses the constitutional line between church and state and should be thrown out as unlawful, an attorney for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has argued before a federal appeals court panel.
The resolution, adopted March 21, 2006 by an 11 - to - 0 vote of the city and county governing body, not only condemns Catholic beliefs but urges Church subordinates to defy Vatican authority, attorney Robert Muise said during the July 16 hearing in San Francisco.
"It's remarkable," he said. "I've never seen anything like this."
Letting the resolution stand "would establish a double standard that has no place in our history," Muise told a three - judge Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel that is weighing the Catholic League's appeal of a lower court ruling upholding the resolution.
One of the judges, Marsha S. Berzon, posed questions similar to those raised by Muise during the hearing and in court papers.
"This is clearly calling Catholic teaching ignorant," she said. "It seems gratuitous for one thing, and it seems to have no stopping point."
Berzon called the resolution "quite extraordinary."
"It has two features: one is a direct attack on the doctrine and another is a direct attack on the hierarchy of the Church," she said.
Deputy City Attorney Vince Cchabria defended the measure, saying the court should view it in a San Francisco context.
"The purpose is not to condemn the Catholic religion but to condemn the discrimination against gays and lesbians," he said, adding that the tone of the resolution should not be an issue in deciding its constitutionality under the Establishment Clause.
The resolution was directed at Cardinal William Levada in his capacity as head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It demanded that he "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."
The resolution goes on to label the Vatican as a "foreign country" meddling in what it calls the city's customs and traditions on same - sex couples' right to adopt and care for children. It demanded that Archbishop George Niederauer and Catholic Charities "defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada."
It closes by stating that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was "formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition."
A second member of the three - judge panel also aimed questions at the resolution, noting that it appears to go beyond making a point about adoption by same - sex couples. The judge also said he was bothered by the closing reference to the Inquisition, calling it "quite prejudicial."
Cchabria conceded that the reference was not necessary but defended it as "an effort to say this ( treatment of homosexuals ) is the same type of thing happening again under a different name."
Muise maintains that the language is critical because it is indicative of anti - Catholic bigotry. It is permissible for a private citizen to express such views, but when a government unit condemns religious belief it violates the official neutrality toward religion built into the U.S. Constitution under the Establishment Clause, he argues.
"There really is a double standard," Muise said in an interview with Catholic San Francisco. "Quite frankly, if they don't reverse then there's absolutely no doubt there isn't an even - handed application, and the Establishment Clause is only being used as a blunt instrument to restrict religion rather than protecting religion."
Muise, who works for the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., a public - interest law firm that defends Christian religious beliefs, said he expects the appeals court to rule within a year. He said that if the court upholds the resolution, the question of modern - day attacks on Catholicism is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Among certain groups not only is it considered politically correct and respectable to attack the Catholic Church, but fashionable," he said. "This is the prime exhibit."
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the nation's largest Catholic civil - rights organization, is pursuing the appeal with co - plaintiffs Dr. Richard Sonnenshein and Valerie Meehan of San Francisco.
