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