Friday, April 27, 2007

This Week's Rosie Award Winner: Federal District Judge Marilyn Patel

And the winner of this week's Rosie Award for Outstanding Achievement in Anti-Catholic Commentary is:

Federal District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel

Here's what put Judge Patel over the top:
ANN ARBOR, MI – In its brief filed last week with the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Thomas More Law Center urged the court to reverse a federal judge’s ruling that an anti-Catholic resolution of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors was constitutionally justified because the Church opposed adoptions by homosexual couples. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, a President Carter appointee and one-time counsel for the National Organization for Women (NOW), ruled that the Board resolution condemning Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality and urging the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church directives does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian legal advocacy group based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is appealing the ruling on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco. Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, observed, “Judge Patel clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church. During oral argument and in her written decision she claimed that the Church ‘provoked the debate’ by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded ‘responsibly’ to all of the ‘terrible’ things the Church was saying. This judge attempted to rationalize the evocative rhetoric and venom of the resolution which are sad reminders of Catholic baiting by the Ku Klux Klan.”

In her written opinion upholding the resolution against the Law Center’s constitutional challenge, the federal judge defended the City by essentially claiming that the Church invited the attack by publicly expressing its teaching on moral issues. The judge stated, “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement, by its [doctrinal] statement. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of this provocation.”

Thompson commented, “Even more remarkable was the judge’s questioning during oral argument. When Mr. Muise explained to the judge that the constitution is a restriction on government because the government has the power of the law to coerce behavior, the judge responded coldly, ‘You saying, the power to condemn someone to Hell isn’t more important to some people than being condemned by the state to have to pay a fine or go to jail?’ Mr. Muise, who was stunned by this comment, responded by explaining that the Church doesn’t condemn anyone to Hell, only God has that authority. To which the judge wryly stated, ‘I’m glad to hear that.’”
(emphasis added)

Nah, she's not at all hostile to the Catholic Church. For all you do, Judge Patel, this Rosie's for you.

"Aarrrrgh! I hates Catholics!"

Of course, in San Francisco, getting a "Rosie" is probably considered a good thing.

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Catholic Provocation?

Federal Judge: Catholic Church’s Position Against Homosexual Adoptions Justifies Government Hostility Towards Church

Announcing a New Major Award ...

Labels: , , , , ,


At 4/27/2007 9:38 AM, Blogger Anita Moore said...

Proving once again that liberalism is a beauty pageant for the ugly.

At 4/27/2007 10:17 AM, Blogger Luke said...

I have not read the actual resolution passed by the San Fran board, but does it do something to Catholics? I mean, does the resolution prohibit Catholic organizations from getting aid, contracts, etc? If not, I would agree with the judge on the narrow issue of whether this is an intrusion into religion.

I will agree with you, however, that the judge's comments about Catholicism are abhorrent and uninformed.


Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter for blogger