This could be interesting . . .

Here is a twist, perhaps, on the civil-disobedience issue raised by Cardinal Mahoney's statements on immigration.  Consider this from the San Francisco Chronicle:

San Francisco elected officials, who have tangled with the Catholic Church before, issued a blistering statement Tuesday that calls on the Vatican to overturn its edict [RG:  Does anyone else issue "edicts" anymore, besides "the Vatican"?  Just wondering . . . ] that children waiting to be adopted should not be placed with gays and lesbians.

The Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a nonbinding resolution that takes aim at a statement issued two weeks ago by Cardinal-elect William Levada, the former archbishop for San Francisco who now serves as second-in-command at the Vatican. Levada said Catholic agencies "should not place children for adoption in homosexual households.''

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors wasted little time chiming in, and challenged local church officials to defy the Vatican.

"It is an 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,'' the resolution stated.

Now, I think the Board of Supervisors is and ought to be entitled to voice its views -- which reflect, I am confident, those of many of the Supervisors' constituents -- on this difficult issue in this way.  That said, I wonder if someone committed to the Supreme Court's so-called "endorsement test" ought to disagree with me.

UPDATE: Here is a more measured and thoughtful critique of the bishops' approach to the gay-adoption question, from the editors of Commonweal.  The editors note:

But if the bishops have swallowed a camel and strained out a gnat, leaders of the Massachusetts legislature have done little better. Like the right to speech, press, and assembly, the exercise of religion is given special protection by the Constitution. Whether it is conscientious objection to military service or exempting Communion wine from Prohibition laws, the inviolability of religious belief lies at the heart of the Constitution’s understanding of the limits of government coercion. The state must demonstrate a high and compelling interest before it can circumscribe the free exercise of religion. In many contexts, antidiscrimination law constitutes such an interest, especially where a religious institution is taking public money. [RG:  I'm not sure.  The "secular" good that a religious institution can do with "public money" would seem, at least sometimes, to justify exemptions from non-discrimination norms].  But that is not the case here.