San Fransisco Court to Decide Religion’s Rights on Gay Adoption
Okay, let me start off by quoting part of the first amendment in the Bill of Rights; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
I quote this because a San Fransisco court is in the middle of “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part of the first amendment. A San Fransisco court in the very near future could attempt to tell a church what they can and can’t do.
A recent San Fransisco resolution (that passed unanimously) that condemns part of the Catholic church’s teachings is now in the hands of the court system. The Catholic church teaches that homosexuality is a sin and they refuse to let same-sex couples adopt babies.
Now under the separation of church and state isn’t that their right to do so? How can the state decide that the church can’t teach that homosexuality is wrong and that same-sex couples must be allowed to adopt. If it is against the church’s teachings how can the government have any say in the matter?
Just because homosexuality is a politically correct behavior the state doesn’t then have the right to tell the church that they must accept it. The freedom of religion means that if you don’t agree with a religion or their teachings you don’t have to follow that particular church, it doesn’t mean that you can take the church to court and make them alter their teaching to suit your beliefs. That is un-American and extremely unconstitutional.
I guess my real problem here shouldn’t be with the court, and it probably wouldn’t be except for the fact that I think we know how the San Fransisco courts will rule on this. My real problem should be and I suppose is, with the arrogant, ignorant of the constitution lawmakers of San Fransisco. They believe that because they believe homosexuality is okay that the churches must believe it also, hence they condemned the church.
Fine condemn the church, I don’t care. But do not try to apply your belief system to the church’s. That is where my problem lies. This is not a case about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. This is not a case about whether a child is better off in a same-sex home that a foster home. This is a case about whether the lawmakers of San Fransisco can impose their beliefs on the church. They can’t, or at least they shouldn’t be able to.
Before you call me a homophobe read my “About Me” page. I don’t give a damn what two consenting adults do in their bedroom, and neither should the lawmakers. But if a person belongs to a church that condemns homosexuality and they don’t agree with those teachings they are free to leave. The church doesn’t have to, nor should it, mold their beliefs to any member. And it damn sure shouldn’t be forced to by the government.
America's Watchtower 
Your post was the impetuous for this article: Case C 06-2351 MHP • Religious Freedom to Deny Adoption
LikeLike
Thanks. I was hoping to comment on your post but I couldn’t fimd a comment link.
LikeLike
My money’s on the catholic church in this one.
LikeLike
Pinky,
Suppose a “church” declared that being black was a sin and refused blacks the right to adopt babies. Would you support their right to do so? I’m not implying that you are a homophobe or a racist. I’m just curious.
LikeLike
This question has had me thinking quite a bit today.
I think that the difference between your question and the church denying homosexuals abortion rights is that the church is condemning the behavior of homosexuality and not the person. Under your scenario the church would be condemning the person. This would go against what Christian churches teach, they would be breaking their own teachings.
I like to believe that churches have moved in the opposite direction on that issue. I believe that churches have policed themselves on this issue without government intrusion.
The Catholic church denies women the right to become priests, is this discriminatory? I would say yes, but the government and the courts haven’t stepped in to stop this practice. It is up to the church to do it themselves. Maybe someday they will.
If I belonged to a church, I wouldn’t personally belong to or support a church that denied a person adoption rights or membership rights just because of skin color. I guess I would take my own advise and find another church.
LikeLike
Pinky-
I assume you mean adoption rights, not abortion rights. I find it hard to believe that there are many homosexuals seeking abortions.
In condeming homosexuality, the church IS condeming the person. Unless they are worried about homosexual dogs or other animals. The homosexuals facing condemnation are PEOPLE too. Unless you view gays as subhuman. That would constitute a pretty extreme viewpoint, I believe. Even the most right-wing of the haters believe that homosexuals can be “saved”. Remember Ted Haggard?
LikeLike
Yes I did mean adoption, sorry. The fact that the church believes that homosexuals can be saved is the reason why I wrote that the church is condemning the behavior and not the person, not because homosexuals are subhuman.
LikeLike
Deciders,
Even though your comments were addressed to Mr. Pink Eyes and he did a good response, I would like to add my 2 cents to this.
From a Biblical perspective, Jesus reaffirms the foundations of the Jewish system that marriage and the raising of children is solely the domain of a man & a woman. That goes back to the first few chapters of Genesis. For any entity or government to have the audacity of trying to redefine the basic tenets of any faith is unconstitutional in the highest degree.
Now covering the topic of attempting to compare “race” to homosexuality brings in a false argument. The color of the skin of an individual and other genetic features is not an issue of choice. Race is merely a societal concept to segregate individuals based on appearance. We are all part of the human race as is duly noted in any medical journal and basic biology or we would not be able to “cross-breed”.
The act of homosexuality is a choice. Smoking cigarettes and cigars is a choice. Neither is good for your health. But one is “bad” and the other is “good” as defined by some. If one studies the basic tenets of Christianity and the Jewish faith, you would find that the choices of the individual are what are categorized as good or bad. Not the individual themselves.
It would be fair to say a responsible society would not condone teaching children to lead destructive lifestyles that will result in increased medical and other impacts in their lives when it can be prevented. The choice of doing illegal drugs, the choice of smoking cigarettes, the choice of drinking alcohol excessively, etc. are all condemned and the children are protected from the marketing pitch for those products.
But somehow it is perfectly fine to promote the choice of homosexual behavior despite the negative medical and societal impacts?
No matter whether someone is interested in the opposite gender or not, what one does when the drop their pants is their choice.
So please do not equate what someone is born with to choice. The argument does not hold. To further press my point, I’m a caucasian guy married to a lady from the Philippines.
LikeLike
Oh, Gary. Just when I thought I’d seen this brand of BS peddled for the last time, you had to post it on an otherwise interesting blog.
I never said that any “entity or government” should “have the audacity of trying to redefine the basic tenets of any faith”. If you don’t want gays in your church, fine. I’d venture that the majority of them (excluding extreme sadists) wouldn’t want to be there anyway. If some do, tell them to hit the skids and go form their own group whom holds identical views to yours on every “issue” besides homosexuality. No one would blame you for that.
And what do you say to the millions of American citizens (I’ll leave the illegals out of this because I assume you’re a hater) that don’t refer to “Biblical perspectives” for instructions to live their lives? You know, your countrymen and women whom might be inclined to look to writings such as the Koran, the Upanishads, or the Pali Canon for such guidance. Those three aren’t on your summer reading list are they, Gary? The point is, you don’t get to decide what everyone believes in. This is not a “Christian” nation anymore than it is a nation of any other faith. I got my B&N hardback U.S. Constitution right next to me, bitch. ($15- good deal) I’m not picking anything up on a scan about everybody having to be Christian. You might want to read this shit before you start citing it in your posts. It is a fascinating read, I assure you.
How can there be a “marketing pitch” for illegal drugs? And what is the difference between drinking alcohol and abusing drugs? (Don’t tell me that one is illegal. This isn’t a bad joke contest). You need to get out more, Gar. Or at least around some people who have been exposed to the things that you are trying to offer an opinion on. I promise you it’s not that bad out here in the real world Gary, the gays won’t bother you. Neither will most of the chicks. The old parted hair/tie clip/fear monger look isn’t cutting it with most girls these days, Gar. Ask Tom DeLay. I’m happy for you that you’ve found a good one.
Lastly, the only way for you to possibly know that homosexuality is a choice is if you in fact are a homosexual. Otherwise it’s just another of your unfounded opinions. You must have been faced with such a decision at some point in your life to be so sure. When did you choose to be “straight”? You know, when did you come to the conclusion that those feelings you had for men was “bad”? Some haters I know would say of you, “that fucking faggot” upon hearing this. I don’t harbor such hatred for someone in your situation. But given the opinions you have offered, I think you need some QT in Ted Haggard’s “I want to be straight again” rehab. You got some serious shit going on, my friend.
My advice, from a clinical perspective , would be to let it go, Chief. Nobody cares what you’re opinion is about gays or anything else. It’s cool, my friend. Look up Pinky’s aforementioned Bingo Bill. That might be more your speed.
Please sit this one out, Gar. You and your kind have done enough damage to this great country of all of ours. Vote Bob Barr if you have to. McSame ain’t your kinda pubber anyway. Be well, my friend. Heaven surely holds a place for those with such faith as strong as yours. You just need to learn to love, learn, and grow.
Your Friend,
Bunny
LikeLike
Hold on a minute there deciders, you are the one who brought up the Bingo bill, I still haven’t been able to find any information on it. 🙂 Just kidding, but on a more seious note Gary did sum up a couple of my points.
While you did not say that any any “entity or government” should “have the audacity of trying to redefine the basic tenets of any faith”. that is what the court would be doing if this ruling is handed down against the church. I think Gary was referring to the case and not what you had written.
Gary also summed up my point on the church condemning a behavior and not the person with this statement:
choices of the individual are what are categorized as good or bad. Not the individual themselves.
By the way, thanks for saying this was an interesting blog!
LikeLike
i just wanted to add that mabey some people are born gay just like i was always straight, but the thing that the church teaches is that being gay is not a sin, but acting on it is. in the church the purpose of marrage is to have kids. the church teaches that you have to be married in to have sex or its a sin. the purpose of sex is to have kids. so since gays can’t naturally have kids the point of sex for them is to have fun, and pleasure, which is selfish, thus a sin, just like 2 straight peolple who use protection to keep from getting pregnant is a sin. God intended for these people to be abstonant, which is there cross to carry. God gives everyone a challenge, they are hard but not imposible. I know what i am talkin about here, ive gone to catholic school for 12 years, so i learned all about it. Which is why race cant be compaired to it, because that is just the way they are by genetics. Acting on homosexuality is a sin, not being a homosexual. We are not animals and should have some self restrant even though its really hard. If you dont believe what the church teaches then leave the church, state should not be able to go against the churches teachings.
LikeLike