The Coming Persecution

Catholics and other Christians who accept scriptural teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acts are rightly concerned over what is transpiring in Canada. Read this very disturbing article:


Sun, June 26, 2005
Argument for voting no to marriage bill
By Ted Byfield
Gay marriage will become a legal right in Canada before Parliament prorogues for the summer, Canadians were told last week, because the Liberal government will prolong the session to make sure the bill enacting it gets approval.
Those few Tory MPs favouring the bill, one of them Jim Prentice of Calgary, assure Christians that they need fear no unforeseen consequences from it.
Nothing in it will interfere with freedom of speech, they say, or with the rights of churches to refuse to marry gays, or the rights of Christian schools to teach the biblical injunctions against the practice of homosexuality, or the right of churches to read passages from Scripture condemning homosexual activity.
All these alarming possibilities, say the bill's supporters, are being raised by "the bigots" who oppose the bill.
There is no basis for them, they insist.
Which would be very reassuring were it not for the fact that no Member of Parliament or the cabinet will have any voice whatever on what the bill's consequences will in fact become. That will be left to the Supreme Court, a body that has been diligently stacked to produce whatever the gay and feminist lobbies call upon it to produce.
In other words, it is no longer a court at all. It is now an unelected legislature, its members specifically chosen to create laws fulfilling an ideological agenda that could not possibly gain the approval of an elected Parliament.
And the content of those laws is already becoming clear.
Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary has been twice cited in complaints registered with the Alberta Human Rights Commission for daring to inform the faithful of the church's position on homosexual practices. If the case proceeds, it will undoubtedly wind up in the Supreme Court where the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
Churches that allow the reading of Levitican or Pauline injunctions against sodomy will be carefully watched, and when sufficient evidence is gathered by gay groups, a prosecution under the "hate" laws will be launched and the court will be asked to decide which is to prevail: Sodomist rights or religious rights?
Again, the outcome has already been decided.
Christian schools and colleges that refuse to hire teachers who practice and preach homosexuality will face similar prosecution -- remember the Vriend case -- and again the outcome is known now.
Soon any church caught teaching Christian sexual morality, or urging its members to oppose sodomy-endorsing politicians, will be accused of getting into politics and its tax exemption status will be challenged. This too will wind up before the Supreme Court with the outcome known in advance.
The effect will be to silence the voice of the church, except of course those churches that put biblical principle first.
Meanwhile, lesbian couples will have been allowed to adopt children. Would it not be vicious discrimination to deny them such a right? It certainly would, the court will rule.
And since gay women have that right, surely gay men should be allowed to adopt little boys. How can the court say no?
The final step will take the cause into the home itself. Some unfortunate Christian parent, caught teaching his child the Christian rules in contradiction of the rules he learned in school, will be hailed before the court for "child abuse."
Again the outcome has already been determined. The court is highly aware of gay rights. The term parental rights does not appear in its legal vocabulary.
These are some of the eventualities that MLA Ted Morton portrayed before a meeting held in Edmonton last week in connection with his upcoming bid for the leadership of the provincial Tory party.
It is not a pleasant picture, he said, but we should be acutely aware of the implications of the gay-marriage bill.
Morton is a reputable professor of constitutional law. His dire warnings cannot be lightly dismissed.
No doubt when Jim Prentice and the little circle of gay-rights Tory advocates vote "yea" on this bill, let's hope they're aware of what they're letting us in for.
When it happens, they will of course deny they had any idea such travesties would occur.
But if perchance they entertain in their minds even the smallest lingering doubt, then surely this argues for voting "No," not "Yes."