Reflections on Catholic Politicians and Abortion

As a national association whose mission is to strengthen the clergy in their preaching and teaching about abortion, we feel obliged in this election season, in which abortion continues to be a hotly debated issue, to echo the recent teaching of our bishops on the relationship between the Church's mission and public policy on this topic.

The Church speaks, and will continue to speak, on the issue of abortion and clearly call for public policies that limit and eventually eradicate this practice. This message is not simply the result of religious beliefs, but of American ideals. As the United States bishops wrote in November of 1998,

Furthermore, we as Catholic priests refuse to be intimidated when, in carrying out our duty to proclaim the Gospel, we are charged with "meddling in politics." We do not endorse candidates or political parties. We do, however, challenge all in political life to reject the violence of abortion. Politics is not an arena which can absolve itself of responsibility to moral laws; nor can the Church absolve herself of the responsibility to teach those laws.

A further concern arises when those holding or seeking elected office take a "pro-choice" position and also proclaim themselves to be Catholics.

No law says you have to be Catholic. But if you publicly declare that you are, don't be surprised if someone criticizes inconsistencies between your public positions and the teachings of the Church.

We repeat the words of the United States bishops:

Priests for Life will continue to echo this teaching, particularly in the months ahead, and will continue to be a resource for the clergy to address the abortion issue with vigor, clarity, and confidence.

Fr. Frank Pavone

National Director

Priests for Life

 

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400
Fax 718-980-6515
Email mail@priestsforlife.org

Subscribe to Fr. Frank's bi-weekly prolife column (free): subscribe@priestsforlife.org 

Click here to See What Abortion Looks Like!

Home
Search  || Crisis Pregnancy Help || About Us ll Support our Work
Latest News  || Guestbook || About Other Groups ll Online Store

This site is updated daily!

A Libertarian Atheist Answers 'Pro-Choice Catholics'

by Doris Gordon

Many who say they are personally opposed to abortion nonetheless support keeping abortion legal. Such a stance is often taken in the Catholic community, particularly by Catholics in politics. An example is Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. Calling herself "pro-choice," she said that as a Catholic she believes "what Catholics believe on abortion," and asked, "[I]s it right for government to force Catholic beliefs on every other faith?" (The Detroit News, 9/10/02).

Interesting question. To ask it is to concede that the political arena is about forcing beliefs on others by law. Government is not a think tank that makes political-policy suggestions. Government is force. The power of the sword is implicit in all laws, just or unjust. How are politicians going to use that power?

Abortion isn't a victimless-crime debate; to abort a child isn't like smoking pot. The reason I and others object to abortion is that we find it to be homicide (the killing of one human being by another). The proper use of government force is to oppose killing the innocent, not to encourage it, as the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, by legalizing and protecting its practice.

People show severe intellectual problems in saying both that they believe what the Church believes and that they would deny preborn children legal protection. The Church holds that such children are human persons with rights, yet the "personally opposed" hold that it should be a woman's choice to destroy them. If there is a credible reason for such a position, what is it?

I'm not Catholic

Opposition to legal abortion cuts across the religious and political spectrum. I'm an atheist. I was born and raised Jewish. Catholicism had nothing to do with my coming to understand why abortion is a wrong, not a right, and why it should not be legal.

I'm a longtime libertarian and participant in abortion debates among libertarians. Libertarianism is pro-choice -- except when it's a choice to victimize others and violate their rights. I used to think abortion is permissible, thanks to Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. But ironically, I became pro-life and founded Libertarians for Life (LFL) because of Rand and her onetime closest associate, Nathaniel Branden, both atheists.

(See my articles, "How I Became Pro-Life: Remarks on Abortion, Parental Obligation, and the Draft" -- www.L4L.org/library/congrecord.html; and "Introduction" -- www.L4L.org/library/intro.html.)

What about the substance of the abortion debate?

Many libertarians are religious. However, in arguing politics, we normally appeal to ordinary reason, not religious faith. In abortion, what's central is: When do human beings -- human persons with rights -- begin? The marker event can't be derived from libertarian philosophy; it just takes the concepts of human being, person, and rights as a given. Its basic premise is that all of our rights are limited by the obligation not to violate the rights of others.

To arrive at the correct marker, we need the correct scientific facts of human embryology. That a new human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, begins at fertilization is well recognized. (See: Dianne N. Irving, "When Do Human Beings Begin?: `Scientific' Myths and Scientific Facts" -- www.L4L.org/library/mythfact.html.)

One doesn't have to be pro-life to accept that this is correct science. Alan Guttmacher, M.D., was a president of Planned Parenthood. PP's research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, was named after him. In his 1933 book Life in the Making, he wrote: "We of today know that man is born of sexual union; that he starts life as an embryo within the body of the female; and that the embryo is formed from the fusion of two single cells, the ovum and the sperm. This all seems so simple and evident to us that it is difficult to picture a time when it was not part of the common knowledge."

There are also philosophical questions to answer, such as: What's the marker for when a person with rights begins? LFL shows why it's fertilization, and why the right to control one's own body is a limited right. (See: Doris Gordon, "Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly" -- www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html; and the sections in the Library on www.L4L.org, "On the Onset of Personhood and Rights" and "On Parental Obligation and Children's Rights".)

In those articles, LFL shows why the support children receive from their parents is theirs by right. Both parents owe them protection from harm, whether they are living in a crib, the mother's body, or in a petri dish. (What about rape? See: John Walker, "Abortion in the Case of Pregnancy Due to Rape" -- l4l.org/library/aborrape.html.)

Roe v. Wade and the ACLU

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court announced itself unable to answer "the difficult question of when life begins." It should have given the benefit of its uncertainty to life. Instead, it arbitrarily ruled that to be a person legally, we must be born.

In effect, Roe trashed the ethical principle of equal unalienable rights as set forth in The Declaration of Independence -- and imposed a two-tiered legal policy on human beings that defines a superior class as persons with rights and an inferior class that does not count. Such a double standard is not only unlibertarian, it puts all of us on a slippery slope. Yet to this day, the Court is unwilling to confront either philosophy or correct human embryology.

Our unalienable rights are pre-political. As Nadine Strossen, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said on C-Span: "We don't need the Ninth Amendment or the Constitution to have rights; we have rights by virtue of the fact we are human beings." I agree. The Declaration of Independence holds that everyone is created -- not born -- equal and "endowed by their Creator" -- not the government -- with certain unalienable rights, among which are life and liberty, and that the purpose of government is to secure these rights.

Strossen and the ACLU favor legal abortion, so on a later occasion I asked her, "If having rights is pre-legal, then why not also our personhood, from which our rights flow?" Usually a font of information, this time she only noted that we disagree. At another time, she admitted to me that the ACLU had no prepared response to the charge that abortion is homicide.

Why is Catholicism opposed to abortion?

Let's get back to what's Catholic. In order to judge the Catholic belief on abortion, one must first know what it is. I consider Fr. Frank Pavone, Founding Director of Priests for Life, to be a reliable source of information. I asked him some questions:

Q: Are there any statements in papal encyclicals against abortion that are inextricably religious? If so, what is their impact on the conclusion that abortion is wrong?

Fr. Pavone: "Yes. The key document, of course, is Pope John Paul II's encyclical The Gospel of Life. One of the specifically religious arguments against abortion found there is from the Incarnation. God, in other words, became human in Christ, and thereby united every human life -- including life in the womb -- to Himself. The Pope therefore concludes that to attack a single human life is, in some way, to attack God Himself.

"The impact this has on the conclusion that abortion is wrong is simply that for believers it gives another motive for the conclusion, and strengthens their awareness that they cannot be `pro-choice believers.' At the same time, as you know, the Catholic Church holds that one can come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong without having any faith at all."

Q: Do these encyclicals say anything against the legalization of abortion?

Fr. Pavone: "Yes, The Gospel of Life states that no civil authority has the right to legitimize abortion, and that if it tries, such laws lack all authentic juridic validity. Yet the Church does not reach that conclusion based on the religious arguments against abortion, but rather based on the fact that abortion violates fundamental human rights which any government is bound to protect. The Church sees her call for laws against abortion in the same way as for laws against stealing. Though stealing is against the teachings of Catholicism, the non-believer is not free to say, `Since I am not Catholic, I may steal.'"

Sounds sensible to me. When faith and reason arrive at the same position, that's a strong recommendation for it. But if others learned in Catholicism have counter arguments, I'd like to hear them.

A challenge

When people argue and agreement seems elusive, they often ask, "Who should decide?" Ayn Rand gave a great answer: "Whoever can prove it." Intellectually, both sides have the burden of proof. Read the encyclicals. Read Libertarians for Life's perspective. Read those who insist that abortion is a permissible choice. Then ask which side of the abortion debate best addresses the fundamental questions and which side makes the strongest case.

What if you're still in doubt? Give the benefit of the doubt to life.

__________________________________________

Libertarians for Life's literature and speakers are available to explain and defend why we oppose abortion. Our reasoning is expressly philosophical and scientific — rather than either religious or pragmatic.

Doris Gordon
Libertarians for Life
Website - http://www.l4l.org
email - libertarian@erols.com

Contact:  Libertarians for Life
http://www.L4L.org  MD, US
Doris Gordon - Founder, 301-460-4141
Keywords:  Pro-Life

By Father William Saunders

Sometimes I meet Catholics who say, "I am personally against abortion, but I am pro-choice." To me, that makes no sense, but how can I argue with them? -- A reader in Springfield

The pro-abortion movement has made great gains using the "pro-choice" label. First, the "pro-choice" label numbs our moral sensitivity because it masks the fact that anyone really is for abortion and diverts our attention from the act itself. Secondly, the idea of being "pro-choice" seems to appeal to Americans who cherish freedom and the idea of being free to choose rather than being forced to do anything.

In arguing against this "pro-choice" position, one must first focus on the heart of the choice—a child. Proceeding from a purely scientific approach, we know that when conception occurs, a new and unique human being is created. The DNA genetic code attests to this uniqueness. (Why has DNA coding become so important in identifying criminals?) Moreover, from that moment of conception, the child continues to develop and grow; the child is born, matures to adolescence and then adulthood, and eventually dies.

Note, though, that this is the same person who was conceived: all that has been added is nourishment, time and hopefully a lot of love. Therefore, our Church teaches that
 

"From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already" (Declaration on Procured Abortion, No. 12, 1974).

Moving beyond science to the level of faith, we also believe that almighty God creates and infuses a unique and immortal soul into that body. This soul—our spiritual principle—is what gives each person that identity of being made in God’s image and likeness (Cf. <Catechism of the Catholic Church>, No. 363-368). Even if there were some doubt that God infused the soul at conception or some doubt that the conceived child were truly a person,
 

"it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. ‘The one who will be a man is already one’" (Declaration, No. 13).

We find in sacred Scripture testimony to the sanctity of life in the womb:

The Lord said to the mother of Sampson,
 

"As for the son you will conceive and bear, no razor shall touch his head, for this boy is to be consecrated to God from the womb" (Jgs 13:5).

Job said,
 

"Did not He who made me in the womb make him? Did not the same One fashion us before our birth?" (Job 31:15).

In Psalm 139:13 we pray,
 

"Truly You have formed my inmost being; You knit me in my mother’s womb."

The Lord spoke to Jeremiah,
 

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you" (Jer 1:5).

For Christians, the sanctity of life in the womb and the belief that this truly is a person is further corroborated by the Incarnation: Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, the true God, entered this world becoming also true man. Even though Jesus was still in the womb of His blessed mother, St. Elizabeth and St. John the Baptist (who was also in the womb) rejoiced at the presence of the Lord. Would anyone dare suggest Jesus was not a person in the womb of His mother? Little wonder that the Didache (The teachings of the Twelve Apostles) -- the first manual of doctrine, liturgical laws and morals, written about the year 80 AD—we find the moral prohibition,
 

"You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born."

Given that the heart of the choice involves a unique, human person, the choice of action becomes clear: to preserve and safeguard the life of this person in the womb or to destroy it. Since this is a person, the latter choice does not involve simply a termination of a pregnancy or the removal of a fetus; rather, the latter choice involves a direct killing of an innocent person, a deliberate murder. Therefore, the act of abortion is an intrinsically evil act. The Second Vatican Council asserted,
 

"Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes" ("Gaudium et Spes," No. 51).

We do not have the right to choose evil, no matter what the circumstances are or even if some sort of "good" may arise. To purposefully choose to do evil is an affront to God Himself, in whose image and likeness we are made. Here it is not as though one is choosing between two good actions; instead, one is defending the sanctity of human life in the face of evil. To say one is "pro-choice" in this matter is no different from saying one is "pro- choice" for apartheid, Nazi concentration camps or Jim Crow segregation laws—"I am personally against it, but everyone should choose."

Pope John Paul II said,

"Anyone can see that the alternative here is only apparent. It is not possible to speak of the right to choose when a clear moral evil is involved, when what is at stake is the commandment, ‘Do not kill!’" (<Crossing the Threshold of Hope>, p. 205).

In those difficult, tragic situations—rape and incest (which result in conception at best 2 percent of the time, depending upon which set of statistics one looks at), a young teenage pregnant mother, or a deformed or handicapped child—we must remember the child is still an innocent human being who through no fault of his own was conceived. Here, sharing in the cross of our Lord becomes a reality without question. In these cases, we as members of the Church must support both the mother and the child through our prayers and by opening our hearts, homes and wallets to their needs. We must make the sacrifice to preserve human life.

Fr. Saunders is president of Notre Dame Institute and associate pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria. This article appeared in the January 19, 1995 issue of "The Arlington Catholic Herald."

Courtesy of the "Arlington Catholic Herald" diocesan newspaper of the Arlington (VA) diocese. For subscription information, call 1-800-377-0511 or write 200 North Glebe Road, Suite 607 Arlington, VA 22203.

Editor's note. Please send me your thoughts on this at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

"Life is, however, the first and most basic good of the human person, the condition for all others…The way we treat this life here and now--especially the life of those who are most helpless and least able to care for themselves--has consequences for our own eternal destiny."
     From "Human Dignity and the End of Life," America magazine."

The Catholic Church plays a highly significant role in the health care system both because the Catholic Church operates many health care facilities and because its pronouncements on the care that is owed to vulnerable patients help shape public policy debates in a life-affirming manner.

In the August 4-11 issue of the influential magazine America, Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia and chairman of the Committee on Pro-life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S.C.C.B. Committee on Doctrine, address an enormously important area: what is the moral obligation to provide food and fluids to patients diagnosed to be in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS ).

They write that two recent articles in America, written by John J. Hardt and Thomas A. Shannon, "appear to misunderstand and subsequently misrepresent the substance of church teaching on these difficult but important ethical questions." Their essay is nourished by clarity and nuance and a concern that the Catholic Church's position on this vitally important issue not be misunderstood.

They recall for their audience that in 2004 Pope John Paul II issued a statement on providing food and hydration to patients in a PVS. For some there was ambiguity in what the late Pontiff had said, and last year the USCCB posed two questions to the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (C.D.F.).

Last September, the C.D.F. issued a response which along with "its accompanying Commentary confirm and explain the statements made by Pope John Paul II on March 20, 2004, on the moral obligation to provide food and fluids to P.V.S. patients when they need such assistance to survive." The response was approved by Pope Benedict.

For our purposes, let me draw your attention to three points made by Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Lori. (Rather than elaborate on what Hardt and Shannon had written, I will highlight the clarifications.)

1. "Pope John Paul II and his successor held that food and water, even when their provision may require technical medical assistance, constitute the 'basic care' that patients should receive. The value of such medical assistance is not to be judged by its efficacy in curing the patient or improving the patient's condition. Supplying the basic necessities of life can often require the assistance of others, in the case, for example, of those who are very young or very old, or simply very weak at any age. In the case of medically stable patients in a 'vegetative state,' who may live a long time with continued nourishment but will certainly die of dehydration or starvation without it, the obligation to care for our fellow human beings presents a very direct challenge. Such a patient's condition should not be characterized as 'unstable' or terminal simply because it would become so if the patient were deprived of food and water."

2. "By omitting food and fluids, what are we trying to achieve? Assisted feeding is often not difficult or costly to provide in itself, but the housing, nursing care and other basic needs of a helpless patient can be significant. To discontinue assisted feeding in order to be freed from such burdens puts the caregiver's interests ahead of the patient's, even if we prefer not to recognize the reality of our choice."

3. Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Lori are polite but unflinching in their criticism of those who would withhold food and fluids on the specious grounds that someone in a PVS "is not a fully human life because it is not capable of interaction with other persons." Wrong in itself, it represents a classic example of the slippery slope.

In a section titled, "The Unity of the Living Human Person," they write, "Such an argument has deeply disturbing implications, since it challenges the value of anyone with mental illness, retardation or cognitive disabilities who is not able to pursue what such critics deem 'worthwhile' activity. … Our love and support for patients in P.V.S. should be modeled on God's love, which is based not on their current ability to act and respond but on their enduring dignity as human beings, made in his image and likeness and facing an ultimate destiny with him."

Their conclusion is very powerful, beginning with the admonition that "Persons in the so-called 'vegetative state' deserve our unconditional respect." They are, after all, our brothers and sisters.

And "even if such efforts at recovery do not succeed, we need to provide friendship and practical help to their families and treat these patients always as fellow human beings in need of basic care. In this way our Catholic community can build a culture of life that excludes no one from the circle of love and mutual support."

Part Three -- Bombay Court Rules Against Abortion

A stridently anti-Catholic resolution passed unanimously by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has prompted a federal lawsuit.

In the March 21 measure, the city's board condemned Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality and urged the archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy church directives prohibiting homosexual adoptions.

The resolution alludes to the Vatican as a foreign country meddling in the affairs of the city and describes the church's moral teaching and beliefs as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "insulting and callous," "defamatory," "absolutely unacceptable," "insensitive and ignorant."

The resolution calls on the local archbishop to "defy" the church's teachings and describes Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is responsible for safeguarding the doctrine on the faith and morals of the church throughout the Catholic world, as "unqualified" to lead.

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.

Thompson pointed out Catholic doctrine proclaims allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals would actually mean doing violence to them because their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment not conducive to their full human development.

Such policies, therefore, are considered gravely immoral by Catholics.

The lawsuit claims that the First Amendment "forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general."

It also states this "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, favored members of the political community."

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the case, argued the Constitution "forbids hostility toward any religion."

"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco are abusing their authority as government officials and misusing the instruments of government to attack the Catholic Church," he said. "This egregious abuse of power is an outrage and a clear violation of the First Amendment."

San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge

A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."

It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "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."

As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."

The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear.

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.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel's decision.

"Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church," he said in a statement. "The judge in her written decision held 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."

Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"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."

The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.

Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

Openly homosexual California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."

The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion's views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.

Currently, as WND has reported, Colorado and Michigan are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as "hate speech" for it's condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal.