"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any
beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any
woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it
is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of
these things: for in all these the nations are de-
filed which I cast out before you: And the land is
defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof
upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inha-
bitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my
judgments, and shall not commit any of these abomi-
nations; neither any of your own nation, nor any
stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these
abominations have the men of the land done, which
were before you, and the land is defiled;) That
the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it,
as it spued out the nations that were before you.
For whosoever shall commit any of these abomina-
tions, even the souls that commit them shall be
cut off from among their people. Therefore shall
ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one
of these abominable customs, which were committed
before you, and that ye defile not yourselves
therein: I am the LORD your God."--Lev 18:22-30 AV

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them
in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication,
and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an
example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
--Jude 1:7 AV

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:
for even their women did change the natural use into
that which is against nature: And likewise also the
men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
their lust one toward another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves
that recompense of their error which was meet."
--Rom 1:26-27 AV

(the same verses transliterated from koi-ne' Greek):
"Through this gave beside them the God into passions
of dishonor; the and for females of them exchanged
the natural use into the(one) beside nature, like-
wise and also the males having let go off the natu-
ral use of the female were burned out in the lust
of them into one another males in males, the inde-
cency working down and the return reward which it
was necessary of the error of them in them recei-
ving(back) from." --Rom 1:26-27 WH-ITGS

In article <20030917051912.24345.00001457@mb-m16.aol.com>,
"TonyZ2001" (

'Bible as hate speech' bill nearing vote
With U.S. watching, Canada set to criminalize 'anti-gay' expression

Posted: September 17, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
2003 WorldNetDaily.com

As some U.S. Supreme Court justices look abroad for guidance on cases related
to homosexuality, Canada is set to vote on a bill opponents say would
criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.

Introduced by self-described "gay" House of Commons member Svend Robinson, the
bill would add sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada's genocide
and hate-crimes legislation.

As WorldNetDaily reported, opponents fear if the bill becomes law, the Bible
will be deemed "hate literature" under the criminal code in certain instances,
as evidenced by the case of a Saskatchewan man fined by a provincial
human-rights tribunal for taking out a newspaper ad with Scripture references
to verses about homosexuality.

The Parliament is scheduled to debate the bill tomorrow and likely will call a
vote within the next few days. The legislation has the support of every
provincial and territorial attorney-general in Canada.

The debate comes amid a battle over a government bill that would establish
same-sex marriage. Yesterday, Parliament narrowly defeated a nonbinding motion
reaffirming the heterosexual-only definition of marriage. The close margin in
the Liberal Party-dominated House of Commons, 137-132, raised questions about
whether the government bill would pass, especially if an election is called
before it is brought to a vote.

Alan Sears, president of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit
legal group, says Americans should pay close attention to their northern
neighbors.

"Why does what is going on in Canada matter?" he asked in an interview with
WorldNetDaily. "Some of our own justices have already have told us they will
be
looking closely at how the 'wider civilization' handles these cases."

Sears notes Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a recent interview with ABC News
that the world is growing together through "commerce and through
globalization"
and we will find out in coming years how our Constitution "fits into the
governing documents of other nations. ..."

In a speech last month, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the U.S. Supreme
Court
is looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues
like homosexual rights and the death penalty.

"Our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change," Ginsburg said
during a speech Aug. 2 to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers
group.

Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law
perspectives," said Ginsburg, who cited an international treaty in her June
vote to uphold the use of race in college admissions.

"While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on
constitutional law should encompass the world," she told the group of judges,
lawyers and students. "We are the losers if we do not both share our
experiences with and learn from others."

In the landmark case that overturned Texas's ban on sodomy, Lawrence v. Texas,
Justice Anthony Kennedy argued against the previous precedent regarding
sodomy,
Bowers v. Hardwick, noting the "case's reasoning and holding have been
rejected
by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken
action
consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to
engage in intimate, consensual conduct."

Sears said the court's arguments in its "fabrication" of a "constitutional
right to engage in sodomy" were so questionable that the court felt "compelled
to appeal to European courts to justify the desired conclusion."

In his dissent of the Lawrence case, Justice Antonin Scalia with two
colleagues
said the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on
Americans."

Scalia wrote, "Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence
because
some states choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain
behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the court seems to
believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct."

Religious defense?

Backers of Robinson's bill, C-250, argue statements against homosexual
behavior
for religious reasons are exempted in the current law. But opponents point out
the law addressed by Robinson's amendment spells out three different types of
actions or speech considered criminal, and only one can be excused by a
religious defense. And even that one, opponents maintain, has not always held
up in court, because its vagueness leaves wide discretion to judges.

The opponents argue the provincial human-rights commissions, which already
include sexual orientation as a protected category, have penalized people for
actions motivated by their conscientious objection to homosexual behavior.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a Saskatchewan man was fined for submitting a
newspaper ad with citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality.


Ad placed by Christian corrections officer in Saskatoon, Canada, newspaper

Under the provincial Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan,
was
found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, of inciting
hatred and was forced to pay damages to each of the three homosexual men who
filed the complaint.

The rights code allows for expression of honestly held beliefs, but the
commission ruled the code can place "reasonable restriction" on Owens's
religious expression, because the ad exposed the complainants "to hatred,
ridicule, and their dignity was affronted on the basis of their sexual
orientation."

If Robinson's bill passes, Owens and others would be considered criminals,
subject to a jail sentence of up to two years in some cases and five years in
others.

Two years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott
Brockie for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group.
Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the group's
request.

In British Columbia, a teacher was suspended for making "derogatory and
demeaning" statements against homosexuals, according to the judgment of a
teachers association panel. Though none of the statements in question were
made
in class, the panel cited letters to a newspaper that indicated veteran
teacher
Chris Kempling's attitude could "poison" the class environment.

One Kempling letter cited by the panel said: "Gay people are seriously at
risk,
not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behaviour,
and I challenge the gay community to show some real evidence that they are
trying to protect their own community members by making attempts to promote
monogamous, long-lasting relationships to combat sexual addictions."

The teachers panel said it does not need to find direct evidence of a poisoned
school environment to determine that a member is guilty of conduct unbecoming.

The panel said, "It is sufficient that an inference can be drawn as to the
reasonable and probable consequences of the discriminatory comments of a
teacher."

In another case, a Christian couple in Prince Edward Island chose to close
down
their bed and breakfast rather than be forced to condone homosexual acts under
their own roof, according to the National Post.

Along with the human rights tribunals, the Canadian Broadcast Standards
Council
rules have been used to censure programs addressing homosexuality. In 1997,
the
council ruled that the airing of a James Dobson "Focus on the Family" program,
called "Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction," violated the requirement that
opinion, comment, and editorializing be presented in a way that is "full,
fair,
and proper."

The Vancouver teacher Kempling wrote a letter to the National Post last month,
expressing his amazement that the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
would choose to side with the teachers against him, noting "not a single gay
or
lesbian person registered any complaint about what I wrote, either to my
employer or the B.C. Human Rights Commission."

"Now I know how Galileo must have felt," he said. "When civil liberties groups
act like Orwell's thought police, true democracy is in serious trouble."

On 17 Sep 2003,

'Bible as hate speech' bill nearing vote
With U.S. watching, Canada set to criminalize 'anti-gay' expression

Posted: September 17, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
2003 WorldNetDaily.com

As some U.S. Supreme Court justices look abroad for guidance on cases related
to homosexuality, Canada is set to vote on a bill opponents say would
criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.

Introduced by self-described "gay" House of Commons member Svend Robinson, the
bill would add sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada's genocide
and hate-crimes legislation.

As WorldNetDaily reported, opponents fear if the bill becomes law, the Bible
will be deemed "hate literature" under the criminal code in certain instances,
as evidenced by the case of a Saskatchewan man fined by a provincial
human-rights tribunal for taking out a newspaper ad with Scripture references
to verses about homosexuality.

The Parliament is scheduled to debate the bill tomorrow and likely will call a
vote within the next few days. The legislation has the support of every
provincial and territorial attorney-general in Canada.

The debate comes amid a battle over a government bill that would establish
same-sex marriage. Yesterday, Parliament narrowly defeated a nonbinding motion
reaffirming the heterosexual-only definition of marriage. The close margin in
the Liberal Party-dominated House of Commons, 137-132, raised questions about
whether the government bill would pass, especially if an election is called
before it is brought to a vote.

Alan Sears, president of the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit
legal group, says Americans should pay close attention to their northern
neighbors.

"Why does what is going on in Canada matter?" he asked in an interview with
WorldNetDaily. "Some of our own justices have already have told us they will
be
looking closely at how the 'wider civilization' handles these cases."

Sears notes Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in a recent interview with ABC News
that the world is growing together through "commerce and through
globalization"
and we will find out in coming years how our Constitution "fits into the
governing documents of other nations. ..."

In a speech last month, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the U.S. Supreme
Court
is looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues
like homosexual rights and the death penalty.

"Our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change," Ginsburg said
during a speech Aug. 2 to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers
group.

Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law
perspectives," said Ginsburg, who cited an international treaty in her June
vote to uphold the use of race in college admissions.

"While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on
constitutional law should encompass the world," she told the group of judges,
lawyers and students. "We are the losers if we do not both share our
experiences with and learn from others."

In the landmark case that overturned Texas's ban on sodomy, Lawrence v. Texas,
Justice Anthony Kennedy argued against the previous precedent regarding
sodomy,
Bowers v. Hardwick, noting the "case's reasoning and holding have been
rejected
by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken
action
consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to
engage in intimate, consensual conduct."

Sears said the court's arguments in its "fabrication" of a "constitutional
right to engage in sodomy" were so questionable that the court felt "compelled
to appeal to European courts to justify the desired conclusion."

In his dissent of the Lawrence case, Justice Antonin Scalia with two
colleagues
said the court should not "impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on
Americans."

Scalia wrote, "Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence
because
some states choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain
behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the court seems to
believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct."

Religious defense?

Backers of Robinson's bill, C-250, argue statements against homosexual
behavior
for religious reasons are exempted in the current law. But opponents point out
the law addressed by Robinson's amendment spells out three different types of
actions or speech considered criminal, and only one can be excused by a
religious defense. And even that one, opponents maintain, has not always held
up in court, because its vagueness leaves wide discretion to judges.

The opponents argue the provincial human-rights commissions, which already
include sexual orientation as a protected category, have penalized people for
actions motivated by their conscientious objection to homosexual behavior.

As WorldNetDaily reported, a Saskatchewan man was fined for submitting a
newspaper ad with citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality.


Ad placed by Christian corrections officer in Saskatoon, Canada, newspaper

Under the provincial Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan,
was
found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, of inciting
hatred and was forced to pay damages to each of the three homosexual men who
filed the complaint.

The rights code allows for expression of honestly held beliefs, but the
commission ruled the code can place "reasonable restriction" on Owens's
religious expression, because the ad exposed the complainants "to hatred,
ridicule, and their dignity was affronted on the basis of their sexual
orientation."

If Robinson's bill passes, Owens and others would be considered criminals,
subject to a jail sentence of up to two years in some cases and five years in
others.

Two years ago, the Ontario Human Rights Commission penalized printer Scott
Brockie for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual advocacy group.
Brockie argued that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject the group's
request.

In British Columbia, a teacher was suspended for making "derogatory and
demeaning" statements against homosexuals, according to the judgment of a
teachers association panel. Though none of the statements in question were
made
in class, the panel cited letters to a newspaper that indicated veteran
teacher
Chris Kempling's attitude could "poison" the class environment.

One Kempling letter cited by the panel said: "Gay people are seriously at
risk,
not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behaviour,
and I challenge the gay community to show some real evidence that they are
trying to protect their own community members by making attempts to promote
monogamous, long-lasting relationships to combat sexual addictions."

The teachers panel said it does not need to find direct evidence of a poisoned
school environment to determine that a member is guilty of conduct unbecoming.

The panel said, "It is sufficient that an inference can be drawn as to the
reasonable and probable consequences of the discriminatory comments of a
teacher."

In another case, a Christian couple in Prince Edward Island chose to close
down
their bed and breakfast rather than be forced to condone homosexual acts under
their own roof, according to the National Post.

Along with the human rights tribunals, the Canadian Broadcast Standards
Council
rules have been used to censure programs addressing homosexuality. In 1997,
the
council ruled that the airing of a James Dobson "Focus on the Family" program,
called "Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction," violated the requirement that
opinion, comment, and editorializing be presented in a way that is "full,
fair,
and proper."

The Vancouver teacher Kempling wrote a letter to the National Post last month,
expressing his amazement that the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
would choose to side with the teachers against him, noting "not a single gay
or
lesbian person registered any complaint about what I wrote, either to my
employer or the B.C. Human Rights Commission."

"Now I know how Galileo must have felt," he said. "When civil liberties groups
act like Orwell's thought police, true democracy is in serious trouble."