The city moved this week to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed by a Catholic group claiming a resolution passed earlier this year by the Board of Supervisors, which condemned church leaders' stance against adoptions by gay parents, violates the U.S. Constitution.

The legal fight stems from a directive issued in March by Cardinal William Levada, former archbishop of the San Francisco Archdiocese, which instructed the church's social services agency Catholic Charities not to place children for adoption in same-sex households. Just this month, the agency's San Francisco office announced it would no longer play a direct role in placing children up for adoption. Instead, it is teaming up with Oakland-based Family Builders for Adoption, which has a gay-friendly adoption policy, and dedicating staff members and resources to help the adoption agency bolster its Web presence.

In his directive, Levada referred to a 2003 statement issued by the Vatican that said same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children because doing so would "actually mean doing violence to these children."

Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who is openly gay and Catholic, introduced a resolution urging Levada, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, to withdraw his "discriminatory and defamatory directive" to Catholic Charities. Ammiano called Levada's intrusion into the agency's adoption practices meddlesome and "an insult" to the city.

The resolution, passed unanimously by the 11-member board and signed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is also Catholic, went on to call Levada's directive "hateful and discriminatory rhetoric" that "is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this board."

On May 6, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, as well as local residents Richard Sonnenshein and Valerie Meehan, filed suit and argued that the board's resolution is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs alleged that the resolution "conveys an official government message of disapproval of the Catholic religion and Catholic religious beliefs in violation of the United States Constitution."

In a statement at the time, Catholic League President William Donohue called the board's vote a "political assault on Catholics," adding that the Constitution "affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any."

"Had the San Francisco Board of Supervisors respected this dictum, there would have been no lawsuit. But because they have shown nothing but hostility to the Catholic Church, holding in contempt its right to craft its own teachings, this was deemed a matter for the courts," stated Donohue.

In the city's motion to dismiss filed Monday, August 14, City Attorney Dennis Herrera argued that, "no reasonable observer would conclude that the board's resolution has either the purpose or effect of inhibiting Catholicism." Rather, Herrera argues that the resolution's purpose is to "denounce discrimination against same-sex couples, and to try to preserve for San Francisco children the opportunity to be placed for adoption with qualified families without regard to sexual orientation."

Herrera spokesman Matt Dorsey said that just as Levada has a right to voice his opinion regarding adoptions by gay parents, so, too, does the board.

"This is a situation in which church leaders weighed in on a public policy debate, which they are perfectly entitled to do, but the fact that they are church leaders doesn't constitutionally shield them from being criticized themselves," said Dorsey. "Yet that is exactly what the plaintiffs are arguing. We think a court will recognize the absurd consequences of embracing that argument."

The city's motion is scheduled to be heard on Monday, October 2 at 2 p.m. before Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in Courtroom 15 at the United States District Court in San Francisco.