Is Church Name Calling Constitutional?

From conservative WorldNetDaily, a story of calling a church a spade, and being taken to court for it. Doesn't the first amendment allow insults as long as they aren't damaging (like O'Reilly calling Dr. Tiller a killer for years?) I hate to say it but the Catholic church and their legal support, Thomas More Law, sound like sore losers who don't want discrimination called what it is: hateful, insulting, defamatory.

One of the article's paragraphs reads: "But referring to the Supreme Court rulings prohibiting excessive government entanglement in religion, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld asked, 'What could be more entangling than telling the cardinal to defy the Vatican?'" If the state can't get involved in the church's affairs, how can dictating the relationship between the cardinal and the Vatican be their business? And if the state's role is to protect citizens from discrimination, how can it allow the Church to discriminate?

And one quick note: we hear a lot about how the church is marginalized, discriminated against, being driven out of San Francisco (and other public places). Yet, what they really wish to do is marginalize, discriminate and drive out minority groups. Claiming discrimination in order to continue discriminating is not a logical position.

Judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals now are deciding whether a formal government document condemning Catholics as "hateful," "insulting" and "defamatory" and urging members to defy church beliefs is permissible under the U.S. Constitution's ban on government hostility toward religion.

The city of San Francisco formally adopted a resolution that condemned the Catholic church specifically for its moral teachings. The resolution was challenged by the Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian legal advocacy group based in Ann Arbor, Mich.

Oral arguments were presented to the 11 judges of the circuit appeals court yesterday in a case expected to "flush out what the U.S. Supreme Court means when it proclaims that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not permit hostility toward religion."

The formal statement from the San Francisco Board of Supervisers attacked the church's belief because it prohibits the adoption of children by homosexual duos.

Read more here.

Proposition 8, The Mormon Church, and the Constitution.

From First Amendment Coalition, this story over the legal battle to prove that the campaign to vote yes on 8 was discriminatory. Call me cynical but it seems that the law should be declared discriminatory, not just the campaign.

The proof of discrimination seems obvious (Uh, funded by the Mormon church to the tune of millions of dollars so that gays can't, you know, have the right to marriage), but not to the federal appeals court in SF which is asked, on First Amendment grounds, to decide whether documents by proponents of the law can be viewed or not. It seems a strange route to declaring a law unconstitutional. But it might set precedent on how churches (now allowed to lobby without registering as lobbyists) engage in politics. I'd love to see their tax-exempt status go away. Bring on the IRS!

I've been talking about discrimination and religion a lot this week with regard to patients' rights, looking at how clauses like Coats, Wheldon, Church and others are allowed to stand when the backers of them are clearly religiously motivated, when what the laws impose is clearly religiously motivated.

The problem, as I understand it, is that access to abortion under Roe v. Wade was determined on the grounds of patient privacy, not religious discrimination, as have been subsequent challenges to restrictions on sterilizations, contraception, emergency contraception, etc. The court has since repeatedly shied away from looking at access-reducing clauses (such as the provider refusal (conscience clause) the Bush Administration thrust on us last December (now suspended by the Obama Administration, to be reconsidered or, hopefully rescinded, god knows when) in light of religious discrimination.

I can see the courts being unwilling to ascribe a legal definition to when life begins. What I can't see is ignoring the clearly religious discrimination forced on women every time a new avenue of reproductive services access is denied. Free speech or privacy have had to carry the water in these suits. Few justices at any level wants to touch them.

The case on Proposition 8 is the same, only the reason for opposition to gay marriage - discrimination - is being skirted in a suit for documents which the court considers a violation of the First Amendment. How obtuse?!

While it may not be politically popular to address the encroachment of religion on patients' rights (or gay, elder, disability or others' rights) it will have to be done. And soon. I'm hoping for a big fat loud challenge to the new Ethical and Religious Directive established by the Catholic Church at all of their 600 hospitals that patients can neither deny nor request removal from artificial nutrition and hydration. I want some tough old lady to stand up and say - do not force feed me bishops!

Already courts are addressing separation of church and state issues at schools where strong anti-discriminatory policies are preventing student groups from demanding certain beliefs of members. How about a little equality!?

A federal appeals court in San Francisco has reversed a judge’s order that backers of Proposition 8, the state initiative that banned same-sex marriage, give their campaign strategy documents to opponents trying to overturn the measure.

In a unanimous ruling Friday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals tossed out the order that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued in October against backers of Prop. 8, which state voters approved in November 2008.

Walker had said lawyers for two same-sex couples and a gay-rights group were entitled to see internal memos and e-mails between Yes on 8 strategists to look for evidence that the campaign had exploited prejudice against gays and lesbians.

The plaintiffs are trying to show that the measure was discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

Prop. 8 sponsors argued that their discussions were constitutionally protected and that Walker’s order would discourage candid communications in political campaigns. The three-judge appeals court panel unanimously agreed.

“The freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas lies at the heart of the First Amendment,” Judge Raymond Fisher wrote for the court. Prop. 8 proponents, he said, had shown that turning over the documents “would likely have a chilling effect on political association and the formulation of political expression.”

The court had suspended Walker’s order last week and signaled that it intended to reverse it.

The trial over the lawsuit is still scheduled to begin Jan. 11 in San Francisco.