Thread by @VMadge

From Barr:
...considered immoral. For example, laws are proposed that treat a cohabitating couple exactly as one would a married couple. Landlords cannot make the distinction, and must rent to the former just as they
would to the latter.

This kind of law declares, in effect, that people either individually or collectively, may not make moral distinctions or say that certain conduct is good but another is bad. Another example was the effort to apply District of Columbia law to compel Georgetown University

to treat homosexual activist groups like any other student
group. This kind of law dissolves any form of moral consensus in society. There can be no consensus based on moral views in the country, only enforced neutrality.

If the Catholic faithful do not take the hierarchy seriously, why should anybody else in the political
structure? It is no accident that the homosexual movement, at one or two percent of the population,

gets treated with such solicitude while the Catholic population, which is over a quarter of the country, is given the back of the hand. How has that come to be?
From a legal standpoint, our initial
focus should be on education and efforts to strengthen and finance education.

This means vouchers at the state level and ultimately at the federal level to support parental choice in education. We should press at every turn for the inclusion of religious institutions.

We need to fight those cases in the states up to the Supreme Court. Whether or not we prevail on programs should make no difference. The message will get
stronger.

(Worried? You should be. He is the AG!!) @ProjectLincoln @neal_katyal @tribelaw

@threadreaderapp unroll