Five Elements of Lawlessness Introduced via California’s Gay Marriage “Laws”


Accepting the Ninth Circuit Court’s rewrite of California’s constitution always was the wrong way to pursue gay marriage. Here are some reasons why:

1. The court’s rewrite is a power grab by government. Now only the government has the right to say what a marriage is…. and courts at that. Previously, a marriage was a marriage no matter what a government said.

2. The court’s rewrite contracts the definition of marriage. It doesn’t’ expand it. Gay couples are not “married.” Because the rejection of California’s constitutional amendment on marriage throws California’s law back into the disarray cause by it’s own Supreme Court’s rewrite, the court has simply denied a proper legal recognition of marriage to all. We can now only be recognized as “Party A” and “Party B.”

3. The court has ordered everyone to deceive his neighbor by using the word “marriage.” State officials are to use the word “marriage” in a manner consistent with the joining of a man and a woman when the court’s revision has stripped the word of this essential meaning.

4. The court’s rewrite of California’s laws violate basic civil liberties. These civil liberties (the right to marry for instance) should be precious to all Americans.

5. The California attorney general’s refusal to defend California’s law before the Supreme Court has become an example of lawlessness in government for even more corrupt officials in the federal government. Ultimately, fundamental elements of California law have been wrest from the people and handed over to a coup of an elitist sect with neither conscience nor heart.

bear baiting

Everyone has framed this issue in ways irrelevant to the core issues. For instance,  people act as though California law now contains an amendment to its constitution that says, “Marriage is between a Man and a Woman and is also ______________________ (no one has ever filled in this blank in any national discussion of Gay Marriage)….” This is absolutely not the case. The California Court, and the Attorney General’s refusal to challenge the override of the California State Constitutional Amendment has closed the door on meaningful adoption of same-sex marriage. There is no core to California family law. It’s gone. It’s whatever the elites say at any moment.

Marriage is Not A School: Gay Marriage’s Flawed Analogy

Marriage is like a law school…? So argues the majority of justices in the ruling of the Supreme Court of California on pages 103-104 in “re: Marriages”:

“In this regard, plaintiffs (those same sex couples seeking marriage licenses) persuasively invoke by analogy the decisions of the United States Supreme Court finding inadequate a state’s creation of a separate law school for Black students rather than granting such students access to the University of Texas Law School (Sweatt v. Painter (1950) 339 U.S. 629, 634),67 and a state’s founding of a separate military program for women rather than admitting women to the Virginia Military Institute (United States v. Virginia (1996) 518 U.S. 515, 555-556).”

This analogy is flawed because it posits what it concludes. In issues of prejudice because of racial diversity, the constitutional truth is that all men are created equal. Hence, when we recognize racial diversity, we legislate against prejudice because no matter what the race, we are all humans. When we see gender inequity based on prejudice, we have recourse to the same words and to the same principle. No person should be refused access to the social good that they merit because of a prejudice based on gender because we are all people. The basis for a similar ruling evaporates when the law moves from individuals to couples. To say that all couples are equal before the law, we must say that marriage is not between a man and a woman. The court goes on to say that we must say marriage is..? What does the Court say marriage is? Let’s go with this: The Court defined marriage as “any undefined congress of Party A and Party B” because, since marriage is not between a man and a woman, all are equal before the law.

However, the court’s most profound error is in equating marriage and institutions of public education in any manner. Marriage is an education, but it is not a school. Unlike the equal access to an education, the only equal access to marriage is that which is duly clothed in commitment and free choice. Schools on the other hand, are primarily about the access men and women have to the opportunities provided by society at large. This Court errs grievously by comparing what a marriage is primarily to what a school, a public school no less, primarily, is.

Schools are primarily social in function. Teaching may be more fundamental to human life in the context of a family, but a school by definition is social. Marriage, in contrast, is a very specific and complete access to another person based solely on the commitments and choices of those two individuals. One can easily conceive of marriage as a fundamental building block of society and, therefore, as a liberty, prior to society and its governments. This is impossible in envisioning a school, especially a public school. The caricature of marriage that emerges from the Court’s attempt to draw parallels between these two unlike institutions is grotesque and offensive.


The Court again degrades all humanity by arguing that what we are as people exists, like a school, primarily because of the good graces of government.

What is absurd on its face reveals greater errors in its specifics. The Court also erred in the arcane reasoning it based upon its grotesque analogy. Here is more from pages 103-104:

“As plaintiffs maintain, these high court decisions (Texas Law School and Virginia Military School) demonstrate that even when the state grants ostensibly equal benefits to a previously excluded class (a class that had been denied access, not because of their abilities, but a history of prejudice) through the creation of a new institution, the intangible symbolic differences that remain often are constitutionally significant.”

The two high court decisions alluded to are fine, but their analogy to marriage is ridiculous. No one can blame the plaintiffs for arguing it; that’s what a decent lawyer is supposed to do. However, the idea that the Supreme Court accepted this analogy is both hilarious and tragic. It’s tragic because it is a true reflection of what we have become as a society. Nothing in our public life matters. Anything goes. Judges should know better, but who really cares? Here are the differences that make the analogy of marriages and schools, let’s just say, inadequate:

The ability to marry comes from what we are as people, male and female, more than it is about who we are as people. This is also true of other essential human liberties. Because of what we are as people, we can speak. What we say determines “who we are.” We also have the freedom to worship. This is part of the nature of what we are as people. Who we worship determines who we are as people. We can access marriage because of what we are as human beings, how well our marriages work are the result of who we are as people. Governments that would keep us from speaking, worshiping or marrying are tyrannies, but governments do not provide access or ability to do any of these things. Instead, an ethical or legitimate government’s role is to acknowledge and recognize these innate human abilities as part of the Eternal Designer’s purpose in mankind.


Additionally, access to schools, especially those mentioned in the Supreme Court decisions cited, unlike any natural right, requires some human merit, some developed innate human ability whether to speak, read, write or reason concerning mathematics. Unlike the analogies at Virginia Tech., and, we hope, to the public high school at issue in Brown vs. The Board of Education, meeting certain qualifications (passing examinations, excelling at one’s coursework) has nothing to do with the right to marry. Hence, when the Court says these two people meet the qualifications we (the Court) set as those necessary to be “married” (they are of the correct age, they can form informed consent, etc), these qualifications are not similar. The individuals meeting such “requirements” do so based on an innate ability to grow and to choose for themselves. These individuals do nothing to “merit” marriage. People cannot merit marriage. Like humanity’s ability worship Whom they choose, the ability to marry is a gift. Nothing people do could ever be enough to merit the ability to worship freely. No, these abilities are part of the gift of life, specifically, the gift of human life. Hence, what one merits is not being withheld by society because of prejudice. How two people behave once they are married determines whether or not the marriage has merit. If this is a civil rights case, it is not a civil rights case that is related to the decisions in Brown vs. the Board of Education, Virginia Tech., or the Texas Law School. Marriage is not a school.

Indeed, if it is a civil rights case, then it is far more analogous to the equal access granted or denied women, as women. Oddly, this is the analogy the Court, in footnote 65, decided did not merit consideration.

“For example, the establishment and maintenance of separate women’s collegiate athletic teams to address the long-standing discrimination against women in the allocation of athletic resources has been found to be constitutionally valid. (See, e.g., O’Connor v. Board of Education of School Dist”

In these cases, the discussion came down not to an unwillingness to recognize the abilities of women to excel in sports. These cases weren’t about denying women the access that they merited simply because of a prejudice against gender itself. All agreed that merit existed and access was deserved. Instead, the issues in these cases came down to problems of access posed by the problems that exist by virtue of what we are as men and women. In civil rights cases of this type, merit and prejudice are not the issue. Instead, we are nonetheless confronted by what we are as people, male and female. Any disregard of who we are as people would have resulted, in these instances, in an injustice to all.

Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue relating to race, since homosexuality is not a race. Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue related to religion because it is not a religion. Nor is same sex marriage a civil rights case based on gender for homosexuality is not gender specific. However, if same sex marriage is a civil rights issue, there are cases of resolving inequity in access to society’s benefits that arise for other reasons. However, bringing these analogies up might be offensive to some. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of California erred: marriage is not a school.

California Supreme Justice: The word ‘marriage’ not important to the ‘right to marry.’

The word ‘marriage’ is not important to the ‘right to marry. ’So says California’s Supreme Justice in “re Marriage Cases“:

“Whether or not the name “marriage,” in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry… (p. 81)”

To this court marriage is nothing more than the rights conferred upon it by the state. Marriage, that is, the right to join in marriage, has a special recognition in law simply because marriage is prior to and independent of any right any state can confer upon it. The state must recognize marriage as it exists independently of government and its ideologies. Why? Because, if California was correct in recognizing a constitutional right to marry in Perez versus California, then marriage, like freedom of religion and freedom of speech, is a constitutional liberty and an inalienable right of free people. To diminish the full recognition of marriage in our laws is to diminish the recognition of who we are as people, a free people.

marriagge 5

Here they go again:
“We have no occasion in this case to determine whether the state constitutional right to marry necessarily affords all couples the constitutional right to require the state to designate their official family relationship a “marriage” (p.80)Marriage 7

Of course the court was lured into revealing its deep-seated lunacy, in all the regal beauty of this linguistic conundrum, by what sounds (according to the court’s paraphrasing) like an equally loony argument by the California attorney general:

“or whether, as the Attorney General suggests, the Legislature would not violate a couple’s constitutional right to marry if perhaps in order to emphasize and clarify that this civil institution (marriage) is distinct from the religious institution of marriage it were to assign a name other than marriage as the official designation of the family relationship for all couples”(p. 80)

As this court has proven, names, indeed words themselves, are meaningless when, left to the divine wisdom of these supreme judges who wrest them naked and reeling from their legislative history, civil rights context, and timeless reality. Call it what you want, marriage is a compact, a commitment between two people (two people who can marry) in which the natural realities of who we are as human beings, male and female together, are appropriately cherished and exalted. Marriages can be good or bad. People in them will be good or bad as husbands and wives. Nonetheless, it is the ability to join in marriage that is at the core of the right to marry. This is the core of every other right that governments rightly or wrongly confer or withhold from those who marry. This contract between two people who are so joined, exists without the help or hindrance of government, and it is this human thing that is the center of any rights governments choose to recognize or ignore.marriage 5

Marriage is not injured at all by history’s discoveries and failures in regard to the meaning of that union. However, societies have revealed themselves in their virtues or their failings by their regard for marriage. How are we doing as a society, and just what does this travesty say about us as a people?

“Bitter” Americans Stuck to Their Guns in Kern California

“Bitter” bibleAmericans stuck to their guns in Kern California.

On June 10, 2008, just days before the days of illegal “marriages” in California, the Kern County board of supervisors, citing their desire to cling to their religious beliefs, ceased all ceremonies solemnizing civil marriages in that county. Four weeks later, on July 8, 2008, despite already exposing the County to a deluge of lawsuits presided over by an antagonistic monkey court, this “bitter” California county felt that they had not yet done enough. To do more to rebel against California’s Supreme tyranny, the Kern County Board of Supervisors considered a motion to begin issuing legal marriage licenses, licenses that said “husband” and “wife” and that could not be used by couples that needed to be subtitled “Party A” and “Party B.” The Kern County Board of Supervisors eventually backed down, but not from cowardice, but from courage and integrity, the qualities sometimes named bitterness by the truly enlightened.

Kern County had been presented with a detailed legal briefing explaining that for a marriage to be legal it must comport with the law. The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) briefing concluded that Proposition 22 was always an unnecessary gesture and that the abundance of California statutes that say marriage takes place between a man and a woman still have legal status. For same sex “marriages” to be legal, all these statutes must be rewritten by California’s legislature. Additionally, pointed out the brief, the Kern County Board of Supervisors is beholden by oath to uphold the law, not the rulings of any Court, or the illegal actions of the executive branch. At Wednesday night’s meeting “bitter” American after “bitter” American encouraged the Board of Supervisors to issue the new Kern County marriage licenses. There are reports form sources close to the board that several of the Commission’s “Party A’s” also pleaded that the board move forward. Additionally, several studies had demonstrated that a flood of tax and tourist revenue would have been spawned by the crowds of Californians that were willing to come to Kern. Studies estimated that thousands of Californians would be willing to travel to Kern for the sake of keeping the sentimental “husband” and “wife” title part of their marriage.

But it was not to be. In the end nothing could move this “bitter” County Board; their personal integrity could not be so easily swayed. Legally, Kern County does not have the authority to distribute marriage licenses. Marriage licenses can only be issued by the State of California. It did not matter that the Mayor of San Francisco issued illegal licenses and was rewarded by the Supreme Court of California with a sweeping rewrite of California law and an unconstitutional ruling in his support. Not even the prosperity of the unjust would shake this Board’s “bitterness.” Their integrity was not to be undermined by examples from this world. May Pennsylvania’s Americans prove half as “bitter” when their time comes, and, yes sir, it’s on its way.

Supervisor Rubio proposed a revisiting of the ban on civil ceremonies citing the 2,000 civil marriages performed last year, many for minority couples. On this, the board again demurred, still granting licenses, but not ceremonies to petitioners. Had this columnist the foresight to attend or email this very bitter board, he would have urged that the dispensation of all illegal marriage licenses begin in August. Let it be what it is in truth. The California Supreme Court has, somehow, with an unconstitutional process, tyrannically banned all lawful marriage in California. I urge all bitter Americans in California civil government to let it be what it truly is. If you don’t have the power to issue legal certificates, at least refuse to issue illegal ones.

Dehumanizing Marriage: Party A, You May Now Kiss Party B

Anytime a basic civil right, an inalienable right, whether enumerated in the U.S. Constitutional documents or not, is violated by a government, that government is dehumanized, the citizens participating in that government are dehumanized, and, of course, those having their constitutional liberties abridged are dehumanized.

Consider the cases in Nazi Germany in which Jews were made to wear a yellow Star of David. The Nazi’s ignored ttwohe basic and self-evident equality among ethnicities in order to single Jews out as less human, deprived of the dignity of equality. The most devious of the Nazi aims, however, had to do with dehumanizing the populace of Germany itself. By refusing to stand up for their fellow humans, the people of German civil society became callous towards the Jews. Ultimately, the Nazi’s themselves became more and more unfeeling towards human life and the plight of their fellow man.

Of course the dehumanization of the German Jew was exponentially quickened because essential religious freedom to worship was likewise stigmatized. Two sets of essential civil liberties were abridged by the Nazis at once. Yet, could the Jews have claimed to have been harmed by wearing the yellow star of David? Shouldn’t they have been proud of their religious background? The wearing of the star was the first of a continuing series of Nazi violations of civil liberties, but the dehumanization of the Jew was already complete before the clear harm began. The prima facia violations of the human rights of privacy and freedom of religion produced the harm to Jewish natural liberties that paved the way for genocide.

Likewise, no matter how one wants to interpret the wording of the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution, humans in a state of nature, without government, have the right to take up arms and defend themselves. Although the choice is intimidating to some, it must be; for that is the essence of self-defense. The right to defend oneself is a severe right that elevates all human life by its severity. The choice to bear arms or not to bear arms defines human character, but it is still a fundamental free choice, a liberty that is part of being human. Although, as the U. S. Supreme Court found, to protect the general welfare and to secure the blessings of all our liberties, the state, as authorized by the people, has the right to limit the liberty to bear arms, court or no court, the right to self-defense must not be compromised.  The District of Columbia completely abridged the right to bear arms and the right of self-defense thereby. Law abiding citizens, then, are completely reduced to dependency on government for their defense. They become no more than serfs of the Dark Ages dependent on their feudal lords for defense. They become the chattel of the state, the property of the state. Their humanity is compromised. The state too is dehumanized, for it becomes like a feudal lord, above those whom it exists solely to serve.

Yet, how are those that were refused the right to bear arms for many years in DC harmed? There is only slight evidence of that harm. The NRA often points to the rise in violent crime in areas in which the second amendment is severely constrained. This may simply be the obvious result of the criminals becoming emboldened by an unarmed populace. However, it could also be that the dehumanizing effects of abridging the right to bear arms emboldens those who contemplate violence.

How do these tests of the effects of abridging of natural liberties relate to the recent ban on marriage in California? In both of these instances, laws abridging human rights have plainly existed without any clear harm initially being found. Both instances are also examples of the truth that abridging any civil liberty dehumanizes the state and its citizens. In California there are no more marriages. Men and women cannot receive a marriage license that says “husband” and “wife”; instead, they become “Party A” and “Party B.” This language is plainly dehumanizing, and it is not the 0417marrriageapp1happenstance of nomenclature. The ruling of the Supreme Court of California and its accompanying opinion wreaks with violations of civil liberties and a callous, inhuman refusal to acknowledge the very essence of what it means for a man and woman to join in matrimony.

California’s Court has reduced marriage to only that over which the state has authority. It has looked at all the clothing of marriage and called these changing incidentals ‘marriage’; but the Court has ruled to ignore that unchanging reality of marriage that forms the basis of marriage as a natural liberty.

In every case, a constitutional liberty is such because its reality is greater than man; its power is independent of governments. It is because of such fundamental liberties’ superiority and priority to government that good governments reside in harmony with these native, inborn rights natural to humanity. Good government perceives that these greater, natural, freedoms are the very blessings of liberty that governments exist, solely, to secure. Marriage is such a liberty because it is more than contracts and commitments conferred by the state. The duties of marriage proceed from the joining in marriage, not from government. This joining for which men and woman are designed (whether by natural selection of by the hand of the God of Nature Himself), this is the very essence of marriage the State refuses to acknowledge.

Refusing the title of “husband” and “wife” is not a happenstance of nomenclature; it is evidence that the State of California refuses to acknowledge the essence of marriage, the joining in marriage, that is central to marriage as a constitutional liberty.  Because the state of California, through the voice of its Supreme Pontiffs, manifestly rec615x200-ehow-images-a06-af-f1-obtain-copy-marriage-license-800x800ognizes only those social rights involved in marriage, and because the essence of my marriage, my ‘right to marry,’ to join with my partner as husband and wife, is no longer recognized by California law, my constitutional right to marry is completely abridged. It is in the essence of humanity, male and female, to be able to freely join in marriage. California has a right to regulate marriage, even as the District of Columbia has a right to regulate the right to bear arms, but California does not have the right to legislate marriage out of existence, to deny its reality, and to ignore its core humanity. To designate marriage as a simple set of rights society chooses by tradition to assign dehumanizes us all.