John Westen

It’s not like they didn’t hear the truth on homosexuality: Waiting on the Supreme Court (Part 2)

John Westen
John Westen
Image

Commentary

See Part 1 here

OTTAWA, Ontario, December 5, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In defending Bill Whatcott before the Supreme Court of Canada, lawyer Tom Schuck laid out for the Supreme Court Justices the extensive and irrefutable medical evidence of the harm of homosexual sex acts.

When Justice Rosalie Abella pointed to one of the sections of the offending pamphlet that warned parents against allowing their children to be taught positively about homosexuality and noting for one thing that their children would die from it, Schuck replied, “And they will, the medical evidence is before you madam Justice.”

“The fact is the medical evidence before you is that people who engage in same sex activities have a life expectancy of twenty years less than anybody else, he said. “Why would any parent want their child exposed to that.”

Justice Abella was a favorite judge of the homosexual activist community long before her appointment to the Supreme Court.  In addition to unilaterally redefining ‘spouse’ in Ontario to include practicing homosexual couples she is also the judge who was responsible for lowering the age of consent for sexual acts from 18 to 14.

At one point in the Whatcott hearing Justice Abella, was caught displaying her bias on her sleeve as she let slip that she thought Whatcott’s statements were hateful.  Responding to a point Abella raised, Mr. Schuck noted that Whatcott should be able to preach his religious beliefs forcefully and drive home his points to his target audience.  Abella retorted, “He can. Why does he have to use hate to do it?”

Schuck acknowledged her point saying: “Yes Madam Justice that’s your characterization - that it was hate.”

There was some comic relief in the courtroom as Justice Marshall Rothstein, while questioning Schuck, demanded to know how Whatcott can justify saying, if “sodomites have their way the school board will be celebrating buggery too”.  After listening to Schuck’s explanation, Justice Rothstein began to indicate that he did not believe buggery and sodomy are the same.

Remaining politely deferential by using the words ‘I think’ and ‘I could be wrong’ to downplay his reply, Schuck informs the Justice that buggery was the term for sodomy used in the criminal code prior to the law being struck down.

Justice Rothstein responded, “isn’t buggery having sex with animals” with Schuck retorting that that would be bestiality. 

The robed lawyers in the background were seen covering their smiles looking down with hands shielding their embarrassed laughter.

A key moment in the hearing came when Justice Morris Fish asked Schuck to defend some of the harshest language in the pamphlet.  Asked to defend a section of the pamphlet claiming homosexual activists were trying to “spread their sickness” to your children, Schuck returned again to the medical evidence showing the harm of homosexual sexual behaviours.

Schuck added however, “it’s not just same-sex promiscuity. Heterosexual promiscuity has many of these same problems. The fact is there is a lot of grief in this world because of misuse of sexuality.”

Justice Fish pressed the point. “You say that it isn’t hateful to describe homosexual conduct as filthy and sick?”

While many a lawyer may have shied away from a straightforward reply, Schuck responded plainly and matter-of-factly. “Mr. Justice I think that putting a penis in an anus would be considered filthy by most people except those that have been sensitized to the gay culture,” he said. “Lots of people find that revolting and it spreads disease.”

It’s straight talk like that that is not heard in most courtrooms today. It’s talk like that that needs to be heard. It addresses the matter head-on, without shying away.  In addition to religious freedom, this court is dealing with the matter of sexuality and thus there is a great need for plain and simple facts. I’m grateful Mr. Schuck was there to tell it like it is.  Now at least none of the Supreme Court Justices can say that they didn’t hear the truth on homosexuality.

See fascinating video of Supreme Court hearing here. Tom Schuck 45-minute presentation begins at 221 minutes in the time line.
Note: requires Microsoft Silverlight player to be installed. This is free, safe and easy to install.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

Parents say they’re now calling four-year-old son a girl

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

OAKLAND, CA, July 7, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- An Oakland, California, couple is giving their four-year old son the green light to identify as a girl.

Jack Carter Christian, the son of Mary Carter and James Christian, will now be known as “Jackie” and be allowed to dress and act as a little girl.

The family acknowledged they were already letting the boy wear his older sister’s dresses on a regular basis and also that he liked to wear pink boots. James Christian said he thought for a long time that it was a phase his son would get over.

Carter detailed in an NPR interview the conversation with her son that led to the decision to allow him to live as a girl.

“Jackie just looked really, really sad; sadder than a 3-and-a-half-year-old should look,” Carter said. “This weight that looked like it weighed more than she did, something she had to say and I didn’t know what that was.”

“So I asked. I said, ‘Jackie, are you sad that you’re not going to school today?’ And Jackie was really quiet and put her head down and said ‘No, I’m sad because I’m a boy.’”

Carter continued speaking about the details of the day she encouraged her son to act upon the emotion he’d expressed.

 “You’re really not happy being a boy?” Carter queried her son.

“I thought a little bit longer and I said, ‘Well, are you happy being you?’” said Carter. “And that made Jackie smile. And I felt like for that moment that was all that really mattered. That was ‘The Day. ”

It was then that Carter proceeded to a Walgreen’s drug store and purchase elastic hair bands picked out by her son to pull his hair into little ponytails, something that offered apparent satisfaction for mother and son.

“There she was, in these cast-off Little Mermaid pajamas and five pony tails that are sticking out of her head kind, of like twigs, and this smile on her face and I’ve never seen such a happy child,” Carter stated. “To go from maybe an hour before this, this child who looks so sad, to that- pure joy, just pure joy, right there.”

Carter and Christian are one of a number of couples turning up in media stories saying that their young children will no longer live life as their biological gender. The confusion they describe is a disorder classified by the American Psychological Association as gender dysphoria.

San Diego parents Jeff and Hillary Whittington appeared in late May with their six-year old daughter Ryland, who is identifying as a boy, at the 6th annual Harvey Milk Diversity Breakfast. Milk, the first openly homosexual candidate elected to office in San Francisco as City Commissioner, was also notorious for preying sexually upon underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys, and was murdered by a political rival in 1978.

Massachusetts couple Mimi and Joe Lemay have also decided to allow their five-year-old daughter Mia, now going by Jacob, to live as a transgender child, turning to NBC News with the specifics.

They said an April DailyMail.com report that it was “his” choice to become transgender, and also that they shared their story hoping to prove there is no such thing as “being too young” to identify as transgender.

“I realized he had never really been Mia,” Mimi Whittington said. “That had been a figment of my imagination.”

Author and public speaker Walt Heyer, who underwent sex reassignment surgery to become a woman and then later returned to living as a man, told the Daily Caller children cannot be born as one gender and identify as another by accident. He now performs outreach to those experiencing gender confusion.

“There’s a lot of questions here. Kids are not born transgender,” Heyer said. “Childhood developmental disorder that comes out of some event or series of events or abuse or neglect or trauma or overbearing mother or father or someone or a lot of times its sexual abuse.”

Heyer said the experience of having parents or caretakers entertain the idea of gender confusion is at issue and this is what happened to him.

“My grandmother kept cross-dressing me and loving on me as a girl and not as the boy God made,” he said.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

Utah man faked anti-gay ‘hate crimes’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

July 7, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – A Utah man who faked a series of anti-gay “hate crimes” may face charges after his actions were debunked by rural authorities.

Rick Jones said someone beat him, leaving facial and head bruising, and carved a homosexual slur in his arm, part of a series of staged attacks that spanned from April to June.

Jones, 21, told a local TV news station in June he believed he was being targeted because he was homosexual.

Jones is also implicated in spray-painting a slur on his family’s home, throwing a rock and a Molotov cocktail through his home’s window, spray-painting the family pizza business, and also breaking in and stealing $1,000 from the business.

The Millard County Sheriff’s office found discrepancies with evidence in the case and Jones ultimately admitted to perpetrating the harassment himself.

Jones could face charges of filing a false report and reckless burning.

His lawyer said the incidents were a cry for help geared toward the people close to Jones, and that Jones didn’t realize how much attention they would get.

Attorney Brett Tolman said that Jones has since begun treatment for mental health.

Tolman said his client did not have any criminal intent and praised the community’s response to the fake accusations, saying that the outpouring of support after the hate crime claims became public still was a good message.

Utah Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox was one who had publicly declared his support after the false accusations surfaced. Cox said Tuesday he’s relieved the allegations weren’t true, and expressed concern for Jones and his family.

Tolman also used the faked crimes as evidence that gays face discrimination.

“I think it’s such good evidence of the difficulties members of the gay community deal with,” said Tolman, “and some make better choices than others.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

U.S. senator: Individuals don’t have religious freedom, just churches

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 7, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment applies only to churches, not to individuals, a U.S. senator said on national television recently.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-WI – the nation's first openly lesbian elected to the U.S. Senate – addressed the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision on June 27 on MSNBC's Up with Steve Kornacki.

"Should the bakery have to bake the cake for the gay couple getting married?” the host asked. “Where do you come down on that?"

Baldwin responded that the First Amendment gave Americans no right to exercise religion outside the sanctuary of their church, synagogue, or mosque.

“Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that,” she said.

Sen. Baldwin then likened the issue to the Obama administration's contentious HHS mandate, requiring employers to furnish contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs to female employees with no co-pay.

“We’ve certainly seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception,” Baldwin said. “Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country.”

“I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts, and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”

That view contrasts with a broad and deep body of law saying that individuals have the right to exercise their religion freely under the First Amendment, not merely to hold or teach their beliefs.

“At the Founding, as today, 'exercise' connoted action, not just internal belief,” wrote Thomas C. Berg, the James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

That body of cases shows the First Amendment is an individual, not merely a corporate, right.

Further, the extent – and the constitutionality – of the HHS mandate is far from settled.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has won 28 injunctions against the ObamaCare regulation and lost six.

The most significant statement to date has been the U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision last June, when the justices ruled 5-4 that closely held corporations do, indeed, exercise conscience protections under the terms of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

"We reject HHS's arguments that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships," they added. "The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their business as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs."

However, the justices did not invoke the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of religion – the “first freedom” that many say has been increasingly constricted under the Obama administration. The president rhetorically has spoken only of the “freedom of worship,” while conservatives say the “free exercise” clause grants Americans the right to practice their religion inside or outside church, in any relevant aspect of their lives, subject only to the most extreme provisions.

The RFRA holds that the government may not substantially burden any religious belief without having a compelling governmental interest.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook