I do not see how USCCB is is trying to make a matter of legislation a religious issue?
I agree with you; the USCCB is NOT making the matter religious. They have a very strong natural law and conscience clause case. But the ACLU is (incorrectly) asserting that the USCCB *IS* opposing it on the basis of religion. But they are not claiming that the USCCB should not be permitted to comment, protest, or otherwise comment on the issue.
Clearly the issue entails debate, and opinion input regarding the matter -the ACLU clearly is stating that religious premise is illegitimate premise and want the USCCB to have no seat at the table.
No, they're not stating any such thing.
You seem to stress natural law and conscience...
Am I correct to assume you do not feel opposing something simply as a matter of faith (with no evidence) is permitted in matters of legislation and policy?
If so,I would ask you the same question I would ask the ACLU -- explain to me how inalienable rights recognized and as well claimed self evident without proof from the Creator -this, in the highest law of the land, how can this stand the legal scrutiny that the ACLU and those who agree with them endorse?
Further, can one oppose something for no reason justified at all? In essence, can I state that I do not feel x should be funded by government because I just am against it -I just do not want to fund it?
Recently in California's Proposition 8 matter legal challenge there was seen evidenced the same reasoning. In essence, the judge set aside the clear will of the people evidenced in a vote because he determined many voted illegitimately -irrationally, premised upon religious belief rather than facts and or science.
Remember we discuss here NOT imposition of viewpoints upon others by force, we discuss having input into matters being decided and selling ideas -those who hear do not have to accept... The free market of ideas the founders envisioned and codified into law by such things as freedom of speech and religion was NEVER intended to shut out some no matter how unpopular from voicing their thoughts and ideas...
Ultimately, the question involves authority e.g. what gives government (if they agree with the ACLU) the authority to tell the religious to sit down and shut up? If not the people, or not God then where is this governmental authority to shut the people up coming from?