AND THE THIRD ANGEL FOLLOWED THEM, SAYING WITH A LOUD VOICE, IF ANY MAN WORSHIP THE BEAST AND HIS IMAGE, AND RECEIVE HIS MARK IN HIS FOREHEAD, OR IN HIS HAND.
*** REVELATION 14:9
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump pose for a photo with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the President’s nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, her husband Jesse and their children Saturday, Sept. 26, 2020, in the Oval Office of the White House. Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks. Opinion As legal challenges to the Trump administration’s immigration policies make their way to the courts, decisions made by Barrett, mother to two Haitian children, could shape the future of hundreds of thousands of Haitian migrants in the U.S.by Vania AndréMar. 07, 2025
Overview:
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, known for her conservative judicial philosophy, also has personal ties to Haiti through her two adopted children. As legal challenges to Trump’s rollback of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and other immigration policies may reach the Supreme Court, the Haitian community should watch closely to see whether Barrett’s rulings will favor or restrict their legal pathways to stay in the U.S.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett rose to the national spotlight in 2020 during her confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment that grants her considerable influence over American law and policies.
Beyond her conservative judicial philosophy, Barrett drew additional attention for the makeup of her family, which consisted of seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti.
Now, five years later, her connection to Haiti has taken on new significance as key legal battles unfold over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, which emphasize rolling back Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and other protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitians living in the United States.
By dave kolpack, associated press FARGO, N.D. — Oct 13, 2017, 1:33 PM ET
The Associated PressTahnee and James Young pose for a photograph in Fargo, N.D., on Friday, Oct. 13, 2017. The Youngs have filed a lawsuit against Catholic Charities for $6.5 million, alleging they were discriminated against when denied an adoption because they weren't yet married. They say they were matched up with a 15-year-old girl in foster care five months before their July wedding date and had hoped to have the teen as a bridesmaid. (AP Photo/Dave Kolpack)
A North Dakota couple is suing Catholic Charities for $6.5 million, alleging that the group didn't allow them to adopt a girl because they were living together and hadn't gotten married yet.
James and Tahnee Young, of Fargo, say they were matched up with a 15-year-old girl who was living in foster care five months before their July wedding date and had hoped to have the teen as a bridesmaid in the ceremony. They never met the girl but they had a 90-minute interview with the teen's social worker, who allegedly told them she "would get things moving" in the hopes that the adoption could be completed before the wedding.
"Everything was fully disclosed up front and there was absolutely no concern whatsoever," James said, referring to the fact they were not yet married.
The Youngs said they became suspicious when they failed to receive the necessary paperwork and were eventually told the adoption was off because they were living together as an unmarried couple.
"The social worker said we had to abide by the church's teachings," James said. "They said we were living in sin and it goes all the way back to the Pope."
William Harrie, who is the attorney for Catholic Charities and three of its employees named in the lawsuit, did not respond to email and telephone messages for comment Thursday and Friday. His office said he was busy with a trial.
The Youngs are representing themselves in the case because they say they haven't been able to find an attorney who doesn't have a conflict of interest with Catholic Charities. They briefly retained a lawyer who sent a letter to the defendants last month asking for the adoption to go through now that the two are married.
"We never got any response from them so I was forced to file this lawsuit," James said. "To date we have not got any phone calls, we have got nothing in the mail."
The $6.5 million sought in the complaint includes $5 million in punitive damages. James, 48, would not say whether he would drop the lawsuit if he and Tahnee, 36, were allowed to adopt the child.
"We want the child," James said. "But we don't want this to ever happen to any other adoptive parent. This is hurting the child."
———
Associated Press writer Blake Nicholson contributed to this story from Bismarck.
Commentary: Opinion Defending the right for religion to exist So, it's come to exist. A law firm is defending the Church's right to exist in the face of political persecution.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
By Stephanie Block
I know a Catholic priest who’s convinced he will die in jail, incarcerated for upholding Church teaching. The first time he made the remark, it seemed a bit dramatic but, as time passes, one wonders…
In March 2006, the city of San Francisco – where else? – issued a non-binding resolution, sponsored by city Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who is also a spokesman for the local Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, which read:
Resolution urging Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity has head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, to 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.
WHEREAS, It is a insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City's existing and established customs and traditions such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need; and
WHEREAS, The statements of Cardinal Levada and the Vatican that “Catholic agencies should not place children for adoption in homosexual households,” and “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children” are absolutely unacceptable to the citizenry of San Francisco; and,
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, Same sex couples are just as qualified to be parents as are heterosexual couples; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors urges Archbishop Niederauer and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors urges Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican (formerly known as Holy Office of the Inquisition), to 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 Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights saw this resolution as markedly anti-Catholic and, in response, asked the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to decide en ban if the city and county of San Francisco had violated the Establishment Clause – making hostility to the Catholic religion an official policy of the city – with this resolution (Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San Francisco, 06-17328).
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t see any such violation by the resolution, contrasting the Church’s “religious” perspective to the city’s secular “dimension” that believed its “culture and tradition …. threatened by the specific directive issued to the Archdiocese.” The secular body, acting from a “context” of equality for gays and lesbians, according to the court, was only defending itself – not promoting one religious belief over another or interfering with the Church’s internal affairs.
The Thomas More Law Center, a legal advocacy organization based in Michigan, has filed an en banc review, resulting in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rehearing the case. The Center contends that the San Francisco resolution violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which “forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general.”
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, says his organization is “fully committed to fighting homosexual activists who seek to promote their personal political agenda at the expense of our constitutional freedoms.” Material available at the Thomas More Law Center website (www.thomasmore.org) goes on to explain: “According to Catholic doctrine, allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. Such policies are gravely immoral and Catholic organizations must not place children for adoption in homosexual households.”
Further, the “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.”
Note: Bolds, Highlights, trebuchet, and verdanafonts added.
P.S. In its intent the case is a valid one; It's preposterous to place children in homes where there isn't a mother and father.
However, the party spearheading this case, those questioning the pratice or the ethics of placing children for adoption in'alternative lifestyle households', in this instance is rather strange. How can the Catholic church and its priests preach morality in California where they have paid $660in rape/molestation suits? Let's be consistent for goodness sake. Not everyone has a 30 minute attention span, or only short term memory?
A monastic pseudo-christian body has nothing to contribute to a society that mainly consists of families. Get a wife, get a life! Have your own children, then you can defend children with 'legitimate morals'. In the mean time your cause is marred with hypocrisy. In my opinion, LGBT's aren't qualified to adopt; But, your bachelor priests lack the moral fibre to preach against it!
To be celibate is one thing, but, God never condemned thousands of men and women to be single, and to be sequestered in seminaries or convents to show Him their love; That's Babylonian, Hindu, and Buddhist tradition, not Christian doctrine. Search the Bible; Check the history books, please.
Point number 2.Thomas Morewas a heinous murderer; He had many Protestants burned at the stake during his brutal persecution of Reformed Christians in England. He was one of those responsible for the Star Chamber edict against so-called heresy.
The Catholic church has never received as much persecution as it has meted out!
So, now you think you're being persecuted? Read the Bible, and read history if you want to see what persecution is about.
I suggest you google the word "The Inquisition".
How ignorant of the meaning of the word persecution can you be with so much edu-ma-cationin your seminaries?
'Gay marriage' squashes parental rights & religious liberty, experts say
Posted on Apr 3, 2009 by Michael Foust
BOSTON (BP)--Some say the sky hasn't fallen in the nearly five years since "gay marriage" was legalized in Massachusetts, but Kris Mineau, a citizen and conservative activist in that state, begs to differ.
Sure, he says, things may look the same on the surface, but if you dig a little deeper, you'll see dramatic cultural changes. Teachers are teaching children about homosexual families over the objections of parents. A major adoption agency has chosen to shut down rather than be forced to place children with homosexual couples.
"The sky is falling in Massachusetts in two key areas: parental rights and religious liberty," Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, told Baptist Press.
Mineau says citizens in states such as Iowa and Vermont -- two places where "gay marriage" is on the march -- would do well to look at his state and the aftermath of marriage redefinition.
Mineau's Exhibit A is Robb and Robin Wirthlin, a husband and wife at the center of a Massachusetts public school dispute that has gained nationwide attention. Their son came home in 2006 and told his parents his teacher had read the class a children's story about a prince "marrying" another prince. The book ends with a picture of the two men kissing.
The Wirthins were shocked, yes, but bewildered when the school told them they would not be given advance notice in the future about any such books. They filed a lawsuit in federal court against the school, but a lower court ruled against them, asserting that "diversity is a hallmark of our nation" and that such diversity "includes differences in sexual orientation." The parents, the judge ruled, could always homeschool their son or send him to private school if they didn't like the public school options. A federal appeals court upheld the decision.
Religious liberty also took a hit in 2006 when Massachusetts Catholic Charities decided to shut down its widely praised adoption work rather than be forced to follow a state law requiring that children be placed in the homes of homosexual couples. Catholic Charities had handled more adoptions of foster care children than any agency in Massachusetts.
In recent weeks supporters of a "gay marriage" bill in Vermont have said religious freedoms would be protected because ministers would not be forced to perform such ceremonies. The Iowa Supreme Court, in its "gay marriage" opinion, even said churches would still be allowed to define marriage as they wish. But Douglas Napier, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said such protections are far too narrow and that "gay marriage" by its very nature negatively impacts freedoms.
"Religious liberties and the homosexual agenda are on a collision course," said Napier, who grew up in Iowa and practiced law there for 16 years. " ... I don't think anybody should think this doesn't affect them. It will affect them, and it will affect them in a very deep way."
Another ADF attorney, Austin R. Nimocks, has repeatedly said that by legalizing "gay marriage," courts and governments are saying that mothers and fathers are replaceable. "All non-partisan research and plain common sense tells us that children need a mom and dad, so the issue is bigger than a 'personal relationship,'" he said. "In the end, the question is this: Which parent doesn't matter: a mom or a dad?"
The Wirthlins' case is but the tip of the iceberg in what has become a steady load of controversies putting religious freedom on the line in same-sex disputes:
-- In New Mexico, where "gay marriage" is not legal, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights commission after a husband-and-wife-owned photography company refused to take pictures of their commitment ceremony. The husband and wife asserted that the ceremony violated their Christian beliefs, but the commission disagreed, ruling in 2008 that the company discriminated and ordering them to pay $6,600 in attorneys' fees.
-- In New Jersey, a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state's civil rights office after officials with an oceanfront religious retreat center owned by members of the United Methodist Church refused to allow the two women to use a pavilion for a same-sex civil union ceremony. (Civil unions are legal in the state.) The state in 2007 agreed with the couple and removed the tax-exempt status of the pavilion, located in Ocean Grove.
-- In California, the state high court ruled last year that fertility doctors must provide services to homosexual couples, even if the doctors have religious and moral objections. The case arose when a lesbian couple sought treatment at a fertility where two Christian doctors worked. The doctors referred the couple to another clinic that would provide the services, but the couple nevertheless sued.
"The list goes on and on," Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a religious liberty legal organization, told BP. "Whenever you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, you end up having a clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its view, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values.... People really need to wake up, because this, I think, is the greatest threat to our liberty that we face today -- bar none."
Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, agreed.
"This is not a made-up threat," Lorence told BP. "This is not some sort of concocted Chicken Little cry. These are actual cases, and as those supporters of same-sex marriage get more and more bold, we'll see more action to punish and silence us."
After Massachusetts legalized "gay marriage," National Public Radio interviewed a lesbian teacher in Brookline who teaches eighth-grade sex-ed and tells the students not only about heterosexual but homosexual sex. She teaches them that lesbians can have intercourse with sex toys. "If somebody wants to challenge me, I say, 'Give me a break. It's legal now,'" she told NPR.
But parents should not just have concern about public schools, Staver and Lorence say. Down the road, the tax-exempt status of churches could be challenged as homosexuality and "sexual orientation" increasingly are placed alongside race in anti-discrimination laws. The goal of homosexual activists, Staver said, is to transform society so much that it views opponents of "gay marriage" in the same light it views racists.
"That's the agenda. It's always been the agenda," Staver said. "There is no question that if same-sex marriage becomes legal, that churches eventually will have their tax-exempt status threatened -- no question whatsoever. If churches today discriminate against race, they would not be able to have tax-exempt status today. If churches discriminate on the basis of same-sex marriage -- if it became legal -- then same-sex marriage becomes the equivalent of race, and churches would not be able to have tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage."
If Staver's prediction comes true, it could impact everything from adoption agencies to Christian school accreditation to licensing for professional counselors, Lorence said. It even could impact church plants who wish to use or rent a public facility.
"The coercive aspect of this cannot be overstated, in my opinion," Lorence said. --30--
Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press. A version of this story ran in Baptist Press in October 2008.
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- On Dec. Dec 8, 1922, H. W. Evans, the newly elected Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, delivered a blistering attack against his organization's usual targets.
He claimed, for example, that giving the vote to "negroes" was the "greatest crime ever committed against his race or our race," and that the "The Jew produces nothing anywhere on the face of the earth."
The bigoted blowhard also zeroed in on Catholicism, asserting that, by undertaking "to make the United States of America a province of Rome," it had "challenged the white, native-born Protestant Christian of America to defend this Republic against invasion or else surrender the Republic to the domination of the foreign ecclesiastical potentate."
While vestiges of this kind of raw prejudice still exist in this country, Evans' attack on blacks and Jews would be met today with swift condemnation by government officials across the board, regardless of political affiliation. Not so, however, when it comes to his disgustingly stupid rant about Catholicism.
This became crystal clear when, on March 21, 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors overwhelmingly adopted a shocking resolution that viciously attacked the Catholic Church and condemned the Vatican as a "foreign country" bent on interfering with the city's government. Though sensationally unprecedented, this official action generated no protests from the politically correct crowd that holds itself out as guardians of our civil liberties.
Properly alarmed and deeply offended, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights filed suit seeking a declaration that the resolution was unconstitutional. Last Wednesday, oral arguments were heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The controversy began when Cardinal William Joseph Levada, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, noted that placing children for adoption with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching on homosexuality. In accordance with that pronouncement, Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco directed that the local Catholic charities bring its adoption policy in line with the church's teaching on marriage and the family.
Niederauer's mandate had little practical effect on San Francisco's efforts to find suitable adoptive homes for its children. This because homosexual couples rarely sought to adopt through Catholic agencies. Moreover, what little impact the directive did have was addressed by a stepped-up effort to find appropriate heterosexual adoptive parents.
In explaining his obligation to comply with church teaching, Niederauer acknowledged that others held contrary points of view and declared that "we recognize and respect that fact." However, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors could not muster an iota of reciprocal tolerance for the sincerely-held, doctrinal beliefs of the Catholic Church.
UNMITIGATED GALL
Instead, speaking as public officials, they vilified Catholic teaching as "hateful," "callous," "insulting" and "ignorant." Then, while demanding that the "foreign country" stay out of San Francisco's business, they had the unmitigated gall to tell the Vatican to rescind its enunciation of Catholic doctrine regarding adoption by same-sex couples.
The First Amendment to the federal constitution provides in relevant part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Though the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" have generated an imposing and at times contradictory body of case law, they are widely understood to mandate that government remain neutral in matters of religion.
Most controversies involve what complainants maintain are unlawful efforts by the government to aid or advance religious causes. Arguing that the Constitution mandates a strict separation of church and state, plaintiffs have successfully invalidated a succession of innocuous activities including a non-denominational, student-initiated prayer that nobody be injured during a football game.
An essential element in striking down a challenged activity under the First Amendment is the existence of some form of government involvement. In the case of the nondenominational prayer, the mere fact that it was a public high school game was deemed sufficient.
The oft-overlooked corollary to these First Amendment cases is that government-mandated neutrality also precludes government hostility to religion. By passing a resolution attacking the Catholic Church in the vilest of terms, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors not only engaged in a flagrant, unprecedented violation of the First Amendment but stigmatized themselves as a rogue band of pretentious hypocrites.
Equally disgraceful, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, a Carter appointee and former attorney for the National Organization of Women, dismissed the Catholic League's lawsuit, brazenly declaring that the Vatican had "provoked this debate." Hence, the appeal heard last week.
The colossal irony here is that its Board of Supervisors has proclaimed San Francisco "America's most tolerant and progressive city." Intoxicated by the ambitions of the far left, they're obviously unaware that, if H. W. Evans were alive today, he'd be handing out flowing white sheets and masks to every one of them.
Daniel Leddy's On The Law column appears each Tuesday on the Advance Op-Ed Page. His e-mail address is JudgeLeddy@si.rr.com.
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump pose for a photo with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the President’s nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, her husband Jesse and their children Saturday, Sept. 26, 2020, in the Oval Office of the White House. Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks.
by Vania AndréMar. 07, 2025
