Catholic Bishops To SCOTUS: Gays Not Entitled to Marriage Since Being Gay Is Just ‘Conduct’

Proving once again that they have the same level of contempt for scientific knowledge as they did centuries ago when they condemned Galileo, the Catholic Bishops have filed briefs in the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases now before the U.S. Supreme Court which among other things state that since being gays is merely conduct (and sinful conduct at that although protecting child rapists is apparently OK), gays are not entitled to civil law marriage rights.  Oh, and let's not forget that the pillars of moral authority at the Vatican and at U.S. bishoprics once held that slavery was acceptable.  For a group that has been so consistently wrong so many times over the course of history, one would think these bitter old men would have learned to keep their mouths shut.  But nothing gets the bitter old closeted queens more upset that the prospect of normal gays having loving, fulfilling relationships recognized by society while they themselves have to be content with wearing dresses and feigning piety.  Think Progress looks at the Catholic Bishops' briefs.  Here are highlights:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has filed amicus briefs in the two marriage equality cases before the Supreme Court, encouraging the Justices to rule in favor of discrimination. At the foundation of the Conference’s argument is the claim that gays don’t deserve any legal protections because the only thing that defines them is their “voluntary actions,” just like polygamists:

In contrast to the classes for which this Court has applied heightened scrutiny, what lower courts have understood to be a homosexual “orientation” is not a trait attributable from conception or birth. Rather, particularly as framed by Respondents here, it involves a species of conduct. Indeed, with this distinction in mind, this Court has recognized that a finding of a suspect or quasi-suspect class for equal protection purposes is  simply  inappropriate when the distinguishing characteristic is  a product of “voluntary action.”

The example of polygamists—a class that is defined in part by conduct—illustrates the point.  One can substitute “polygamists” for “homosexuals” as that term is used in the  Windsor opinion and arrive at the same conclusion for the former as the Second Circuit did with respect to  the latter. Our point, of course, is not that the two are morally equivalent, but simply that the Second Circuit’s logic leads to absurd results, and  that the absurdity originates with the decision to  ignore this Court’s “voluntary action” limitation on “distinguishing traits” that may trigger heightened scrutiny.

Unsurprisingly, the word “gay” is not to be found in the brief except when citing case law. It’s telling that the brief even uses scare-quotes around the term “orientation,” implying that the concept of a sexual orientation doesn’t even exist. Indeed, British Archbishop Vincent Nichols admitted earlier this month that the Catholic Church refuses to identify anybody by their sexual orientation. All the Church sees is sex — no identities.

The goal of completely erasing the lives of gays and lesbians is obviously apparent. Despite claims of protecting children’s well-being, the Church refuses to acknowledge that the many children raised by same-sex couples would benefit if their parents could marry. In the brief, the Bishops admit these families exist, but nothing more. Instead, they cite the problematic Mark Regnerus study and irrelevant “fatherless” studies to suggest that same-sex parents are inferior, when none of the data actually indicate that. In the name of protecting children, families, and society, they are doing the exact opposite.

Would that more prosecutors would have the balls  to go after these horrible old men who have participated in a world wide criminal conspiracy to aid and abet child rapists and to cover up their crimes.  The deserve no deference or respect whatsoever.  If any Supreme Court justice even reads their briefs they demonstrate their own moral lacking.