U.S. pastor and pro-family activist Scott Lively
Posted on 12/12/2014 7:09:11 AM PST by wagglebee
U.S. pastor and pro-family activist Scott Lively
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed a lawsuit to proceed against U.S. pastor Scott Lively accusing him of “crimes against humanity” for his overseas activism opposing the homosexual agenda.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages "to be determined at trial" and a declaration that he violated "the laws of nations" by speaking against homosexual “rights.”
Pastor Scott Lively, who recently completed an unsuccessful bid for governor of Massachusetts, was sued in 2012 by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of "Sexual Minorities Uganda." The Ugandan homosexual activist group claims Lively’s speeches and sermons warning Ugandan leaders not to follow the liberal West’s lead on homosexuality incited murders, violence, and persecution of homosexuals in the African nation.
The lawsuit is seeking redress under the Alien Tort Statute – a controversial law that has occasionally allowed foreign nationals to sue U.S. citizens in American courts for crimes committed overseas, regardless of whether the law supposedly broken was a U.S. law, or a law in the country where the alleged crime occurred.
Lively asked Judge Michael Ponsor to throw the case out, arguing that his right to free speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution, and nothing he did or said violated Ugandan law. But Ponsor refused in a vitriolic 79-page ruling on August 14, 2013 that called Lively’s opposition to homosexual behavior “ludicrous.” The judge blamed Lively’s speeches for everything from isolated incidences of police brutality against homosexuals in Uganda to the introduction of a controversial bill that would have made homosexual behavior punishable by death. The penalty was later amended to life in prison, but the bill failed anyway.
Lively has expressed support in Uganda and other countries for laws banning pro-homosexual propaganda, similar to the law Russia recently enacted, however he strongly opposed the harsh penalties in the Ugandan bill. The lawsuit claims that by sharing his views with influential people in Uganda, Lively somehow set off a chain reaction of violence and persecution against homosexuals that continues to this day.
Lively appealed to the First Circuit Court, asking them to overrule Ponsor’s judgment and dismiss the case. He again pointed out that he had not broken any U.S. or Ugandan laws, and said he could not be held responsible for the actions of an entire foreign society, nor its individual members, just because he made some speeches in 2009.
But last week, a 3-judge panel on the First Circuit denied Lively’s request. While they conceded that “it is debatable whether [Judge Ponsor] has properly parsed the petitioner's protected speech from any unprotected speech or conduct,” they said that Lively’s “right to extraordinary relief is not clear and indisputable.”
Given the importance of the case to future application of Alien Tort Law, the judges said they would rather allow it to go forward in order to further explore the issues raised by Lively and his lawyers.
“This petition for [dismissal] raises a number of potentially difficult issues with respect to the Alien Tort Statute … and the First Amendment in cross-border application,” the judges wrote. “Further development of the facts will aid in the ultimate disposition of this case.”
In 2002 and 2009, Lively was invited to speak before a group of Ugandan pastors who were concerned about the rise of pornography and homosexuality in their culture. He shared with them the history of how American culture "had been brought low" by homosexual activists in the U.S., and warned them that unless they took action to prevent it from happening in their country, they could expect similar results. He reportedly drew connections between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, noting that historically, most homosexual behavior has started with pederasty -- men having sex with adolescent boys -- and encouraged Ugandans to protect their children from indoctrination or recruitment by gays and lesbians.
Brian Camenker of MassResistance, who works closely with Lively on pro-family issues in Massachusetts, told LifeSiteNews by email that he found the First Circuit’s decision “outrageous.”
“First of all, the charges are ridiculous on their face, and in fact false,” said Camenker. “Second, a U.S. Supreme Court Decision last summer clearly nullified any use of the Alien Tort Act by the plaintiffs, which is the mainstay of their case.” Camenker was referring to Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply outside the United States.
Camenker added that Judge Posner “should have recused himself because of his background – going back years – of supporting the homosexual movement and its goals.” He provided a link to an investigatory piece he wrote, which says in part: “Ponsor is openly liberal and a protégé of pro-homosexual Judge Joseph Tauro, who recently ruled to strike down DOMA in the federal court. But that's just his more visible profile.”
Continued Camenker, “Ponsor's bias favoring the homosexual movement goes back several years. At his judicial induction ceremony on Feb. 14, 1994 … Ponsor told the assembled crowd, ‘We have a proud, vibrant gay and lesbian community’ in Western Massachusetts. At that time, it was a particularly unusual statement to make, especially for a judge.”
Camenker noted that Ponsor has indirectly funded the plaintiffs’ legal organization for years with donations to the Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts (CFWF), which funnels money to CCR. Additionally, Ponsor’s second ex-wife and daughter both identify as lesbians, and his first ex-wife was a prominent pro-lesbian activist.
Perhaps more troubling is what Camenker described as Ponsor’s “troubling ties to plaintiff's local counsel, who is also a radical activist.”
“The local opposing counsel in this case, Luke Ryan, worked as a law clerk for Ponsor from 2005-2007 and appears to be close friends with him,” Camenker wrote. “Ryan is an active supporter of Arise for Social Justice, a thuggish pro-homosexual group which, along with ‘Occupy Springfield,’ has terrorized Pastor Lively's downtown coffee house mission. Ryan is also involved with Out Now, a homosexual group that demonstrated against Lively at the court hearing.”
I saw this coming years ago. One of the problems is that most refuse to believe the reality of what gay activism is and where it originated. This isn’t about a friend from school or a brother who is living a gay lifestyle this is about a movement that is hedonistic to the core and which truly intends the total deconstruction of family and sexual morality.
Good comment and I fear the conjecture in your last sentence is correct.
I chose buying foreign over “Buy American” recently because my only American choices supported the homosexual agenda and other leftist causes. I felt bad afterwards, but knowing I didn’t support this makes up for it.
Africans usually obey those above them, i.e. uncles, employers, officials. So if a woman works for a man, often she feels obliged to sleep with him. Many girls and boys are routinely abused by family members or schoolmasters. No problem for girls, as long as he supports the kids, because having a kid shows she is fertile, so she often will have no trouble finding a spouse. But often for boys, this means rape and shame and rage against the one who did this (and others of his race/tribe/sexual orientation) for their entire lives.
Western colonialism often mean men worked in mines etc. in dormatories. Guess what happened there?
And of course, a lot of Europeans sent their problem sons to Africa to stop scandal. Guess what some of their problems were?
Then we have all the male rapes as punishment in jails or of enemies captured in many wars, or of school kids captured by “insurgents” and used for sex, both male and female.
Nor is any of this new: the Ugandan martyrs were killed for not renouncing Jesus and for saying no to the king’s sexual advances.
In other words, why blame one Evangelical for a few speeches? Especially since most Africans are Catholic or Anglican, not evangelical, Christians?
EXACTLY.
One of the most accurate posts I have read for some time on here.
I know the text.
But the fact that the articulated order of precedence indicates that the infliction of homosexuality upon society is punitive seems to be missed by most.
Did God hate the Frogs he sent in response to the self-worship of the Pharaohs, and the eunuchs who propped him up?
This is a 1st amendment violation of the worst possible kind. Holy hell!
>>may soon be fighting the fight on an actual battlefield.
Won’t be much of a battle if all they have to do is select who gets vaccinated - and who doesn’t.
>>Where are they on Islam and supporting terrorism?
Because the 1st and 8th amendments, among others, are an anathema to the Tzars and the eunuchs who’ve been propping them up atop their state-established pyramids.
The sheeple will eat their own entrails along with the Bill of Rights in a conditioned, fearful, and silent response.
From Article...”accusing him of “crimes against humanity” for his overseas activism opposing the homosexual agenda....
and a declaration that he violated “the laws of nations” by speaking against homosexual “rights.”
Dangerous territory ...looks like the enemy of God is making an effort to prevent Christians from interfering in his destruction of the family overseas now as mush as here....
Sadly this issue of Homosexuality is going to also split the churches, as we’ve already seen. Many are slowly, if not already adapting to permitting homosexual relations and marriages in their churches. which is something Christians cannot stand with. ....perhaps intended to be the beginings of seperating the goats from the sheep in preparation for his return?
People must wake up and focus on the health issues associated with male queer behavior. We all know that homosexual behavior is condemned in the old and new Testaments, but this will not sway secular laws. The only option is to focus on the infectious disease factor and the coprophilic behaivoir of the males.
Yes they are, but put in mind the people who let ebola infectees into the U.S. to infect Americans? These libs don’t care about much beyond their world of wealth and politics. People below their level are as cattle or garden tools, it’s no deal unless you have thousands to millions dying or rising up against you.
Not their problem, because Iran is a foreign nation that hates the so-called “evil” nation of Israel. Which leads me to ask, why doesn’t the left praise Israel for its’ liberalism?
How is it obvious which way the Supreme Court would rule? Stevens isn’t even on the Court anymore. While Ginsberg and Sotomayor’s position may be easy to figure out, there are still seven other Justices. Scalia, Thomas and Alito strike me as three solid votes against the law. Roberts is probably in that category as well. Kennedy in recent years has been more conservative, opposing expansion of state power in a number of cases. Even Bryer, a Clinton appointee, at times has been reluctant to expand power over individuals like this.
You’re right, I got Stevens’ name wrong. I was thinking of Kennedy, as well as Kagan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.