The Eclipse of the American Idea

The legacy of the Declaration of Independence is well over two hundred years old, but the American idea has never been in greater danger.

First, the idea that the individual has been endowed by his Creator with the sovereign right to a government that works for him has been eroded by a hundred years of creeping socialism, but recently matters have become much worse. The most enduring legacy of our Constitution, a liberty that has stood unscathed, suddenly lies in smoking ruin. America’s religious liberties are gone. Their light has been eclipsed.

In deciding to make homosexual marriage the law of the land, the Supreme Court has, for all practical purposes, made homosexuality a protected civil rights class like race, religion, and gender. They have done so without a constitutional amendment or any attempt to solicit the will of the people. That they could do this shows how far gone our Constitutional liberties already were, but the court has made matters much worse.

The proof that the Supreme Court of the United States has unlawfully rewritten the United States Constitution is that our religious liberties are no more. The self-evident proof that our religious liberties are gone is in the desperate and pathetic attempts of some conservatives to produce bills downloadprotecting what has now been ripped, in practice, from the U.S. Constitution.

Our laws protecting religious liberty from government, a model that has spread world wide, have been twisted into a weapon to affect the very persecutions they were once written to end. For instance, as a Christian, I may not agree with other Christian florists and bakers who refuse to participate in a homosexual wedding. Indeed, I might make points about Christian charity and its power to change lives. Nevertheless, my brothers and sisters are under no legal obligation to agree with me. That’s the American way. That’s freedom of religion and of speech.

When the courts add homosexuality as a protected class, the American tradition of no government involvement in religion is utterly undermined. In practical effect, a church that espouses Christian charity for bakers, tailors, photographers, and florists is favored by government while Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish religions that begin to perform marriages for same sex couples would be even more highly favored. Ultimately, churches that refuse to self-edit their Bibles concerning homosexuality will come in conflict with the force of anti-discrimination laws once written to protect their liberties. Whether they use this authority or not, our government has now been granted the ability to establish a religion or to persecute a religion over its views on homosexuality. Oh, by the way, you can bet they’ll use it.

constantine swordThe sword Constantine the Great drew in the house of God, Thomas Jefferson sheathed in our founding documents. Constantine did not mark the birth of Christianity, but he marked the birth of Christendom in the West. From that day until our founders took their stand, by special endowment or by the use of military force, European governments sponsored teachings and leaders in Christian organizations. More blood ran from Constantine’s sword over the course of European history than from the Black Plague. Once the New World was discovered, courageous people couldn’t get away from Europe fast enough. The Supreme Court has drawn the sword of Constantine again. America’s Copernican shift in the view of the relationship between good people and their government has been shrouded in medievalism.

Same Sex “Marriage” as a Weapon Against Liberty

There are many powerful people who purport to believe that religion, “the opiate of the people,” is a scourgjoseph-stalin-39-728e on humanity. Altruists, they purport to genuinely believe that society would be better if all religions, especially Christianity, were expunged from planet earth.

That’s not a constitutional view of course. Freedom of religion is as sacred as the freedom of speech. Like the right to marry, it is part of what is innate in people and part of who we are as people prior to governments. It’s self-evident, no matter what one believes about religion, that governments need to, as much as is possible, keep out of the business of policing faith. Any law or ordinance that puts government into the business of arbitrating religious belief should be shunned. Indeed, governments ought to be in the business of promoting and exalting those freedoms that abound in a free people. This includes the “right to marry” and the practice of religion openly and freely.

marriage 3For instance, the ACLU may believe in the right of same-sex couples to call their unions a marriage too. That’s fine; however, if Reverend James Wilson is correct in his analysis of the effect of laws in Canada as applied in the United States, perhaps the ACLU and others have a more nefarious agenda in mind. Perhaps there is a secret treasure to be exhumed from the corpse of our mangled national marriage laws. With a victory in the Supreme Court, perhaps the ACLU can end religion in public life completely. We will be able to think religious thoughts, but we will not be able to either speak our beliefs or practice them in public.

To some, it’s an abomination to say that humans are, by nature, God-hungry. Indeed, to some, such a belief is a blasphemy against enlightenment. To some, all who profess such things as a right to worship should be shunned and cast out of the public square as filth. That’s fine, but that’s not our constitution. We the people, not the courts, were entrusted by our founders with the legal authority to change the constitutional basis of our land.

Reverend James Wilson wrote in “Proposition 8 protects freedom of religion” that:

“The state Supreme Court decision OK’ing civil rights laws for suppression of doctors’ consciences is part of an alarming pattern. The decision held doctors liable after they refused for religious reasons to inseminate a lesbian. The doctors referred her; there was no injury to the woman as she was inseminated and gave birth. But the court said doctors lose their right to free speech and religion when licensed to practice medicine in California. And if the experience of northern Europe and Canada is any indicator pastors will lose those rights should Proposition 8 fail in November. That is because courts in those nations have found pastors (and any who express politically incorrect views) guilty of hate speech.’:”

Many in California at the time tried to laugh off such notions as ridiculously alarmist, but, even in those days, the series of bilious comments by readers of Wilson’s article made one suspicious. Here were a few from long ago:

“Rev. James Wilson, it’s a shame you don’t follow Jesus’ teachings to love one another instead of spreading hate like this column.
Practice what you preach.”
You have no idea what the Bible says, do ya…

“He’s just being a hypocrite.”

“…it IS ‘hate speech’, MR. Wilson (you don’t deserve to be addressed as “Reverend” – that title should be reserved for people who attempt to reflect God’s love and compassion in their lives).

Revgrx_topbar_v01-40. Wilson’s most controversial line was that “love without truth is not love.” Reverend Wilson’s article was simply one of a tremendous variety of instances in those days surrounding California amending its a Constitution to  define marriage as between a man and a woman. At almost every turn the volume of the spiteful ad hominem attacks increased exponentially when faith was mentioned at all. The raw enmity expressed in any number of reader comments associated with those expressing religious disagreements with homosexuality itself was a firestorm. Whether the religion is Roman Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim, the hate was as furious as it was obvious.

There is no shortage of even more intolerance today. The Supreme Court of the United States’ decision on gay marriage has only made matters worse.florist Whether it is threatening pizzeria owners in Indiana or suing a little old lady’s flower shop in Washington, examples abound of mean-spirited hate being unleashed nation-wide against Christian believers. Perhaps, this, this torrent of brown-shirted, fascist hatred against the faithful is exactly the point of the entire same sex marriage movement.

Oh, so, when those crazy extremist, right-wing Christians’ heads were on the ACLU’s chopping block, it was no big deal. Have you noticed that even your girls high school locker rooms and your little girls’ public bathrooms are not safe from the homosexual assault on liberty and privacy? Is it a big deal yet? Have you noticed who your true friends have been all this time? Can you see who Liberty’s true enemies are yet?

Law suits are very exact instruments. No one has to sue. No one has to sue a Muslim cake maker. No one has to sue a Muslim cake maker in Dearborn, Michigan. No on has to sue a Jewish florist, but if a powerful group like the ACLU wants to target Christian religious institutions in every state in the nation, the Supreme Court has handed the ACLU a perfect weapon.

We’re still feeling the consequences of the weapon of Roe v. Wade of course. However, this new weapon would be more like the weapon delivered to the ACLU in 1967 when prayer and God were banned from public schools. A fundamental misrepresentation of the Constitution has now become a wedge by way of which the ACLU has threatened even a cross standing as a war memorial in San Diego.

Perhaps it is this weapon against the faithful, not marriage equality at all, that is what the entire court driven, elite media agenda has been all about. The promise of atheism is license to “do whatever feels good.” It’s truth, atheism’s essence is totalitarian slavery.

The Defamation of Marriage and the Rise of Totalitarianism

To abandon celebrating the self-evident truths of what a marriage is, is to abandon reason itself, for reason tells us that the oaths of marriage are abiding in their humanity. The abiding meaning of these oaths to the human spirit flow from their relationship to the commitment to others demanded by every biological union of man and Cer4F0TWQAEspsJwoman. The oaths of marriage are not for self.  The oaths of marriage begin with self, but they are in exchange for something higher in people than their personal desire. The exchange of vows is about far more than joint financial agreements that mutually benefit each ‘partner.’ Marriage oaths are selfless commitments made because of each individual’s honesty with reality.

In all of this “marriage equality” legalese is a kind of bitterness, a jealously that requires the defamation of marriage from personal spite. Only the strain-at-a-gnat, most superficial things that can, by arcane, nonsensical sophistry be associated with marriage, are of interest to modern “justice.” Under the guise of the misguided pursuit of the jurisprudence of equal outcomes as justice, the courts claim the state has no interest in the human part of marriage. Such courts and such laws must ignore liberty because liberty is a human thing. Only human hearts can see the bars that hold living things in prisons for what they truly are. 

It’s a hardness of heart, not justice, that shuts out human concerns, loves, and, finally, liberty in the name of equality.

Cer4FzQXEAQh1eDNo rational system of law can survive an arrogance so blinding it cannot see the purpose of the sacred promises of marriage, vows that are far above a desire for financial and social advantage or “equality.” No civilization can endure a foolishness so malignant that it would deny the reality, reason, and the nature of these vows. The alternatives are the savagery of totalitarian tyranny and mob rule. Vows like those that are part of marriage bring out the best, most humane in mankind. A nation that would ignore these values is inhuman and very dangerous.

Consider as an example of our national vulgarity, the legal corruption surrounding the trial of California’s Proposition 8, a trial that ended a voter initiated amendment to California’s constitution defining marriage. The definition of marriage the voters chose was, obviously, the definition of marriage already embodied in California’s constitution and family law.

Because the monkey trial atmosphere surrounding California’s Proposition 8 so reeked of corruption, it marriageis very difficult to tell from the edited version of the “Proponents Defense of Proposition 8″ (Walker’s ruling p. 6) how well ProtectMarriage.com defended that crazy California proposition that marriage is between a man and a woman. For instance, Proposition 8 is, first about preserving the definition of marriage in our laws. A marriage is a marriage and always will be a marriage despite the judicial travesty of putting marriage on trial for inequality. However, in protecting the definition of marriage, Proposition 8 is foremost a defense of the ‘right to marry’ enshrined in federal and state law. Neither the plaintiffs, the majority of voters, nor the judiciary have any authority to infringe upon this natural right of a man and a woman to join in marriage. Tragically, it has been the courts that have led the charge, not to preserve the right to marry, but to deprive the people of the legal recognition of this right. This is prima facie evidence that the bow of our constitutional government is sinking, and, like the stern of the Titanic, an American totalitarianism rises.

What was born in the darkness of California’s corrupt judicial proceedings, proceedings that showed a profound hatred of our constitutional law, can only bring deep evil to our society and culture.

Plainly some of ProtectMarriage.com’s arguments sounded like they were the wrong ones for this particular California judge. For instance, arguing that “We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our own kids that gay marriage is ok…” (p. 7) is like arguing natural rights before a hereditary monarch. This is the blindness that passes for light in the dim and reeking recesses of our national “jurisprudence.”

Judge Walker sought to undermine a sound premise argued by ProtectMarriage. Judge Walker’s summary of this part of the argument reads, “…If the gay marriage ruling [of the California Supreme Court] is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage” (p.7). Walker emphasized “could” to emphasize that the gay community repeatedly denied that teaching gay marriage to kindergartners was on the agenda. Apparently, the good judge felt it was time to refight the campaign, not in the public square where the brainless, dirty masses have the right and power to disagree. Instead, he chose to bolster its wijudgesdom by refighting the campaign in the sanctity of his safely elite, intellectually pure, courtroom. He didn’t argue the law. He argued words spoken in campaign literature. About this though, he was, as about everything else, wrong and deceitfully wrong. California history has shown conclusively that now that the Supreme Court of the United States has made dehumanized marriage the law of the land, our government schools will immediately become sexual “reeducation camps” from the earliest years.

Additionally, based on Judge Walker’s conclusion that asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman “targets gay and lesbians specifically due to sex (p.120),” he seems to have surprised everyone by taking the words “no difference” to mean no “qualitative” difference. In other words, he indicated that all who say that marriage is between a man and a woman intend to teach that same sex couples cannot be successful parents or that their commitment to each other is in some way inferior to that of heterosexual couples. He took, apparently without asking clear follow up questions, the plaintiff’s position that those who espouse the outrageous claim that marriage is between a man and a woman do so to intentionally disparage same sex couples. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Everyone recognizes that the differences that sane people wish to preserve between same sex unions and marriage are factual, biological, and historic.  If there is scientific evidence that children raised by same sex couples do not fare well, that is a matter for science and law. Courts have no more business legislating this that they do in devising the means of conducting open heart surgery.

ProtectMarriage explained that the plaintiffs give no alternative definition of marriage and send, therefore, every branch of family law into an endless morass of absurdity. Their words fell on deaf, callous ears.

It is, nevertheless, apparent that ProtectMarriage made a sound and vigorous defense of the benefits of kidsmarriage to children and for the state’s profound interest in the weakest among us. This is a sound argument, and in happier days such words would never have fallen unheeded to the ground. But these are perilous times. These are the days of a social obsession with an equality of outcomes so complete and total that no aspect of civil life is spared it’s intrusion. Instead of showing the natural compassion for the weak that must be part of a judicial temperament, Judge Walker fixated on bizarre celestial visions of equal protection. Instead of erring on the side of caution, Judge Walker put the state’s interest in assuring the will of the people with regards to the welfare of their children aside. As a result, one who seems unfit for the judgments of law has set himself up as the final authority and arbiter of the benefits of family to children. Judge Walker accepted novel studies over the proven wisdom of the ages. He did this because, in American society today, this is true enlightenment.

The defamation of marriage is the consequence of an idolatrous blindness and an ascending American totalitarianism.

These are the days of the leveling of our land. There can be no excellence because there can be no failure. It does not matter whether you study hard and become an outstanding physician who is able to help people in ways no one had ever thought about before; your outcome must be the same as your neighbor’s. It does not matter whether you’ve chosen to do drugs all through high school, the state must provide for your college education and the best health care that everyone else’s money can buy. Likewise, if you are a homosexual it is just not fair that you can’t be married like everyone else, even though it is physically impossible.

We have been making excuses for everyone in society.  It is not compassion but an obsessive craving for a self-deceptive, idolatrous ideal that thrives on its own relativistic madness. A fear of the truth, like the Tower of Babel, is being, block by block, lifted from the cheering masses of smug, useless “intellectuals” that populate the sterile hopeless corridors of our universities. Only the rise of a totalitarian state could defy the natural light of liberty completely enough to satisfy craving for self importance.

Most of the working people in America could care less about this new religion of egalitarianism. However, the elite of our educational institutions know this idol and have bowed before its golden horns.the-golden-calf

Western society’s “new” ideology, its “new” religion, is one so psychotic it can tolerate none other. Its first creed is that “all truth is relative.” Hence its others: “all choices are virtue,” “all choices are equal,” and, therefore “no choice has a consequence.” This is not a happy time in California where the merit of the family is not in the state interest. This is not a happy time in the United States when “equal protection” is exalted above sanity in a farce beyond historic parallel. The notion that some choices are a blessing to the individual and to his country is a notion that can no longer be tolerated. Such a conclusion is unacceptable, so no fact that leads to such conclusions can, ipso facto, be valid. Today we are closer to the days of the monkey-courts of the French Revolution than we were last week. An American totalitarianism is rising.

When a Tax is Not a Tax and a Marriage is not a Marriage

When the “congress of one,” Justice Roberts, voted with four other “judges” for the most massive takeover of the private economy ever, his reasoning pivoted on a lie. Not only did Roberts change the spelling of fine to ‘t-a-xroberts,’ but he also rewrote the U. S Constitution: no constitutional tax can arise from the Senate, even in a budget reconciliation conference.

Far worse, however, is the implementation of the first “tax” in history based on what a person doesn’t do. We are taxed on income we earn only because we work. When we pay a sales tax, we are taxed on what we choose to buy. Even the inheritance tax is based on the act of bequeathing one’s wealth. But the Obamacare “tax” is not like any other; it’s a tax on what we don’t do. The Obamacare tax is a singular monstrosity because a fine masquerading as  a a tax is another legalized lie.

The gospel of relativism has again led to lawlessness. Our laws, our constitutional system is now meanObamacare (1)ingless when it comes to federal power over our lives. From law is liberty. From relativism: tyranny.

Relativism’s gospel: “Oh, don’t worry yourselves over the details. Thinking is too much trouble. Everything will be fine. Just follow along”; then the cuffs are on, the door is latched, and the last light of liberty is gone.

The Supreme Court has just given the federal government the power to tax us if we don’t buy yogurt. We wouldn’t have to eat the yogurt, but we would have to buy it. The Supreme Court has just given the federal government the right to tax us if we don’t go to a privately operated fitness center. We don’t have to do anything once we get there, but we do have to report and sit around for three hours a week. If we don’t, we pay a tax.

America has surrendered a series of natural rights to its courts recently. For instance, we have a right to secure our own borders, but the courts just told Arizona that they must give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. We have a natural right to marry as we choose, but in several states, like the word “tax” the word “marriage” has been destroyed. If a marriage is not a marriage, then, like “tax,” it is whatever the government says it is.

If a marriage is not a sacred contract between two people based on the natural right and ability to form a sexual union, then what is it? It’s whatever the nice government tells us it is. Maybe, since a real marriage is just about love, a marriage is only a marriage if the members of the compact are loving enough to enroll in the gold health care helpprogram, a very special program that has clear dietary regulations and aerobic achievement goals. It is certain that since a real marriage is “love” that no legally sanctioned marriage would ever use the terms “husband” and “wife” because that is so insensitive.

Natural rights are part of who we are has humans. They’ve existed before governments and empires. They exist as great civilizations fall into ruin and as others arise. Governments can’t take them away. Tyrannies can only go to war against our humanity. Our natural rights are like life and conscience. They are each person’s privilege. They are everyone’s responsibility.  What is far worse and far more dangerous than that we’ve allowed ourselves to be dehumanized by surrendering a host of natural rights over the last decade is this: our government has sought to take those rights away. Any government that wants to take such liberty from its citizens has aligned itself against the will of the Creator Himself who designed all mankind with the liberty to seek Him freely and enjoy His gifts.

When a tax is Not a tax and a marriage is not a marriage, it’s tyranny.

Dehumanized Marriage is Not a Party

Dehumanized marriage, gay marriage, is often touted as progress of some sort. Many seem to feel that a dehumanized marriage is like “letting everyone be part of the party.” Dehumanized marriage is not a party; it’s an invitation to tyranny.

Marriage, “a joining,” is a mutual commitment based on a biological union. While indeed, marriage is a “celebration” of this commitmarrriage 4ment, here the word “celebration” is not a party. Instead, the celebration sets aside a relationship between two people as unique because of the mutual decision to form a biological, sexual union. Whether or not children arise from this biological union, this union, marriage, is a commitment based on biological realities.

Marriage is both a natural right and a constitutional right. It’s a natural right because it is utterly independent of governments. Legitimate governments, though, as with all natural rights, are responsible for recognizing and protecting the humanizing reality of marriage. Indeed, in our recent constitutional past, courts have found this to be the case. In 1967, in 1978, and in 1987 the Supreme Court rightly found that marriage, understood in essence as, “the conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, …[obliging] them to live together throughout life,” is not only a natural right, but a fundamental right inherent in the liberties our constitution obliges our government to note and protect.

Everyone knows that marriage is no picnic, but neither is it an adult prom, a special chance to be recognized by friends and family as part of the traditional flow of society. American laws are based on nearly eight hundred years of cartawar demanding, protecting, and transmitting natural rights and liberties. There must be some other way to make same sex couples feel welcome in society than by purposely undermining the core reality of natural rights that forms the foundation of Western law and civilization.

Doug Mainwaring, a gay Tea-Party activist, once called the marriage equality movement an “un-defining” of marriage. He was exactly right. This “un-defining” is an insidious destruction, not only of marriage, but of the limited government a free people must demand. While marriage, like conscience, is as lasting as our humanity itself, limited government relies on the rule of law. As Marxism has “un-defined” property and thievery, so our judicial system has been bearing the national chest to the storm, begging the lightning to strike. By dehumanizing our marriages and families, we declare ourselves mindless, mewing cattle ready for the avarice of tyrants.

Some of even the most patriotic Americans don’t really understand either the legal or spiritual history of marriage. magna-carta1For instance, one brief before the Ninth Circuit brief read: “At the heart of this case are two competing conceptions of marriage. The traditional conception…holds that.. its [marriage’s] central purpose…is to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation.”

The carriage is before the horse! Children and a strong family are but a benefit of maintaining a marriage. It’s the fruit, not the tree. Our judiciary must be unceasingly reminded of their Constitutional responsibility to uphold the natural right to marry and all other natural rights.

Un-defining a right denies that right. If we have a right to marry, but the word “marriage” is meaningless, we have a right to nothing. A society that suppresses, ignores, or devalues any natural right will reap the whirlwind.

More will be impacted than the state of children in dehumanized “marriages.” If our government cannot be trusted to tell the truth about marriage, it can’t be trusted to tell the truth on anything. Why should we unfetter gmarriage 3overnment from its obligations to guard our inherent liberties? Would we willing allow the federal judiciary to un-define the right to bear arms? Perhaps the right to bear sharp Frisbees is liberty enough for a free people.

Any government that does not recognize and protect natural, unalienable rights is an unnatural evil. Why? Because that government’s entire mission statement has become corrupted. Legitimate governments only exist by virtue of their charter to recognize and protect the naturally arising, unalienable, inherent rights of every person.

Our founders rejected the early tenets of evolution expressed by the Enlightenment (see Thomas Jefferson On Intelligent Design), and, instead, felt that these inherent rights were evidence of the will of the Supreme Judge of the world. Any government that is “destructive of these ends” is, therefore, not only without legitimate authority, but also at war with Divine Providence.

Marx’s Plot to Destroy the Nuclear Family More Horrible than his Economics

Spreading the wealth around is an idea at least as old as Karl Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program in which he wrote: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” To Marx this notion was a transitional principle leading to the workers’ paradise. His economic ideas are utterly nonsensical and have caused poverty and slavery wherever they’ve been tried. Even more sinister than an “economic system” based on lies that appeal to human jealousy and greed was Marx’s methods and plans for dismembering the hub of economic liberty: the nuclear family. As wicked as Marx’s appeal to the masses of the “downtrodden” were, even more base was his appeal for “a community of women.”

As part of the “dictatorship of the working class,” Marx desired that there would be no wealth to spread around. Marx wanted to abolish “capital.” That is, Marx envisioned abolishing the means to relate to others in terms of employer and wage earner.

marx

It was an idea that never worked very well. Why? Have you noticed the flaw in Marxist logic? If there is no capital, there can be no wage earners, or, in other words, no jobs. Therefore, Marxism leads to the absence of wealth!

Oddly, illogical notions don’t work in the real world. Because of the failure of these Marxist ideas in practice (as well as on the drawing board), one almost suspects the motivation of anyone in any government who proposes them.

On one level the motivation seems plain. The appeal of Marxism can be outwardly pleasant. When we humans don’t get what they want, it feels very unfair to us. It is easy to demand fairness instead of responsibility. It’s even easier to promise to make things fair by making a gift of someone else’s property to those who desire “fairness.” Nevertheless, considering how little clear thinking it takes to recognize the absurdity of Marxism, one must wonder about the cynicism of its proponents.

Marx also had some interesting notions about marriage. The Manifesto reads: “Bourgeois marriage is (because of rampant infidelity), in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed (system of free love), an openly legalized community of women.”

For Marx any force that disrupted one’s marriage was part of the plan for a worker’s paradise. The nuclear family appeared to be a threat to the communist theorist. Again the manifesto reads: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.”  At any rate, once capital had been destroyed, of nature the workers RedWhiteparadise would feature no mothers and no fathers. In addition to the revolutionary party’s “community of women” Marx felt that public schools were the key to destroying the nuclear family. He was almost right about this, but marriage proved tougher than he thought. Since marriage exists prior to governments, it will endure when governments fail. Government schools can resist marriage, but cannot prevail against this God-given human ability because it is part of what people are.

Although Marx claimed that “the bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation,” he was wrong about that as well. No, it would be a hundred and fifty years before the Supreme Court of the United States did this. Although married folk pay SCOTUS no mind, it begs the question: what kind of judicial system is it that wants to reduce marriage to a definition only ever imagined by Karl Marx? What kind of “justice” system hates what we are as people to such a fanatical degree?

A careful read of the Communist Manifesto will reveal its ambitious aims to amass the power of the state in the hands of the few. This, not a workers’ paradise, is what it has always achieved for those who have used its perverse arguments to their advantage. If you wonder why America has struggled since the late fifties, consider some of the other preconditions for Marxist communism that he first set out in 1847. Precondition #2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Precondition #3: Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Precondition #10: Free education for all children in public schools.

By the way, some wondered whether the United States bank bailout plan would work. It did, but not, of course as wealth of nationsadvertised. Interestingly, here is the fifth of the ten Marxist preconditions for a workers paradise first outlined in the Communist Manifesto: “Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” It all depends on what one means by “work.” Anyone who knew the history and failures of Marxist theory, would have been certain that the bailout plan would not produce wealth. However, if one hates the United States because of its international prestige, its great abundance, and its liberties, and, as a student of Marxism, has been awaiting a crisis of capital to forward the communist agenda for the express purpose of ruining the wealth of nations, this bailout worked perfectly. Small investors cannot earn interest. Centralized banks make trillions by simply recycling Federal Reserve green backs.

Marx’s opposition to The Wealth of Nations is plain. Poverty is the inevitable result of his precepts. His ideas about family are equally astute.

Relativism, Rome, Homosexuality, and the Fall of the West

The Archetype of American Wisdom

The elite Roman moralists, Virgil and Cicero, cited the agrarian lifestyle as the source of civic virtue. Thomas Jefferson went further. He believed that no nation could provide evidence of the corruption of virtues among those who worked the land. For Jefferson the independent farmer became the allegoric prototype of our unalienable rights. Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin framed the archetype of the American spirit by printing its distinctive wisdom in a farmer’s almanac and displayed his self-reliant American wit before the courts of Europe from beneath a coonskin cap.

Cole's Savage State which is a model of Locke's view of man's natural state of freedom.

Virtue is embedded in nature, instructed by nature, and rewarded by nature. As Thomas Cole’s sequence of portraits “The Course of Civilization” illustrates, mankind’s journey from a savage state to an agrarian state nurtures courage, determination, diligence, frugality, and, above all, a respect for reality.

While the savage state is Locke’s ideal of man in nature, Cole’s pastoral state is the model of Jeffersonian virtues.

Cole's Pastoral State: the model of Jeffersonain Virtue

Below, Cole’s image of civilization’s consummation shows mankind’s social apex as his complete insulation from the rigors of the natural environment. People retain the virtues they have learned on the path to success and strength. Their virtues have allowed them to overcome the harsh savagery of the natural environment. This easily acceptable view of society’s zenith shows man severed from his teacher.

Once within the luxurious bubble of civilization, no lie is too great to be considered plausible. While we make genuine scientific progress, the false, self-styled sciences that “experiment” with the lifestyle of mankind are as old as the hills. In insulating himself from the harsh realities of nature, mankind abandons virtue and lives by the permutations of a relativism nobody in an agrarian state can afford. This natural failing of mankind only increases with his loss of virtue. The more debased and vicious people become, the more they must insist that everything is relative, that choices make no difference. Anyone who even dares to suggest otherwise becomes an outcast, a fool, a fanatic.

Cole's Consummation: Mankind's Lost Teacher

Sallust, witnessing the fall of the Roman Republic, recognized the end of Roman liberty as a consequence of Roman vice:

“…By practicing these two qualities, boldness in warfare and justice when peace came, they watched over themselves and their country. …But when our country had grown great through toil and the practice of justice, (then)…those who had found it easy to bear hardship and dangers, anxiety and adversity, found leisure and wealth … a burden and a curse. Hence the lust for money first, then for power, grew upon them …For avarice destroyed honor, integrity, and all other noble qualities; taught in their place insolence, cruelty, to neglect the gods, to set a price on everything. Ambition drove many men to become false; to have one thought locked in the breast, another ready on the tongue; to value friendships and enmities not on their merits but by the standard of self-interest, and to show a good front rather than a good heart. At first these vices grew slowly, from time to time they were punished; finally, when the disease had spread like a deadly plague, the state was changed and a government second to none in equity and excellence became cruel and intolerable.”(War With Catiline, 9-10)

Only relativism validates such practices in civic life. Self-interest is a satisfactory motivation in everything but government. This was the fanatical relativism that destroyed the Roman Republic. In Rome relativism led to a failure of patriotism, to schism over duty, and ambition over honor. The rise of RomanCole's Destruction: The effect of vice and weakness on civilization Imperialism was sealed. The systematic exultation of homosexuality was only a symptom of the decline of the Roman Republic as it is but a harbinger of the abyss now awaiting the West.

No society is fit that has lost all contact with the truth.

Certainly, there has been homosexuality in every age. However, the fall of Athens and of the Roman Republic can be linked to evidence of rampant, institutionalized homosexuality. This is the last outrage of man against nature and those values that are natural to the human heart. People become too civilized, too elite, to be bothered with the truth. Ambition dismisses the hard work of responsibility to the truth as a venal preoccupation with the trivial. Reality becomes hard words, the pauper’s long face, an outcast in polite society. Institutionalized homosexuality is not the effective cause of the end of civilization; it is simply the last death rattle of a society no longer fit for law or decency.

In Athens the rise of Socrates as a “corrupter” of the young, reveals the intense reaction against what had become very public homosexuality (“Plato”). As in the modern West, the question of homosexuality in Athens was no longer one of a government that peered into bed chambers; it was an issue of protecting young men against the onslaught of an institutionalized homosexuality in the public square. Socrates came to historic prominence in the late fifth century BCE (400 BC). Exactly what the details of the case against him were is unknown; however, Plato and Socrates were the rock stars of their age. What occurred must have been a monstrosity that could not be ignored. Yes, Socrates aggravated the traditionalists, but not by his philosophy alone. It was his behavior that outraged what was left of the old guard of the old ways. He was executed in 399 BC. Within sixty years King Phillip II of Macedonia defeated Athens, and the queen of the Athenian league became a member of the Corinthian league. Athens became a mere memory of glory.

Cole's Desolation: a mere memory of glory

The evidence that rampant, institutionalized, homosexuality held sway in Rome as the Republic burned is very telling. It is found in Augustus Caesar’s desperation about the birthrates in Rome. Not only did he pass some of the strictest ordinances favoring marriage and forbidding promiscuity in Roman history (Paragraph 13 and footnote 5), but he did so with a very peculiar tirade against the vast majority of the unmarried Roman noblemen. These noblemen were knights, members of the equestrian order. They were the elite of the Roman world. In his speech defending his new ordinances, great Augustus commiserated at length with the bachelors who protested that there were some unpleasant things “incident to…the begetting of children” (p. 23).

The account of this speech by Augustus is telling for three reasons. First, it is an often told tale that homosexuality has a genetic component that affects only a small percentage of any given population. However, plainly, plainly the majority of the equestrians had become homosexual. Secondly, this is so like government. Long after the Republic has fallen, and long after there was any chance of saving the Roman birthrate, then, then, the government gets into the act.

Lastly, a more often told tale is that the only with the rise of Christianity did homosexuality become unacceptable. This is not, historically, the case. Augustus reasoned that if there were fewer children, there would be fewer legions, and it would be the end of Roman domination of the empire. He reasoned correctly. Despite the wisdom of the most powerful emperor in the history of the Mediterranean, by the end of the first century Italian recruits comprised as little as twenty-two percent (Hassall, The High Empire, AD 70–192, p. 331) of Rome’s armies. From the first century on, barbarian auxiliaries, among whom homosexuality was not tolerated, earning citizenship by service in the Roman military became the rule. The idea of Rome lived on, but for the Romans themselves, it was mostly over. They too became but a memory of glory, an inspiration to barbarians like us.

In the case of Rome and Athens, the virtues of the old ways were neglected, so also in the United States. In Athens and Rome luxury, born by innovation and ingenuity or on slavery’s back, insulated the citizenry against the virtues an agricultural life demands. In rural societies laziness, stealing, lying and promiscuity are evils none can afford. The harvest rewards the diligent, the faithful, the honest, and the kind. Homosexuality did not bring down the ancients; it was simply their final outrage against nature and nature’s maxims. Instead of virtue the ancients increasingly insisted that depravity, dishonesty, and cruelty of every type were justified by an undeniable, invincibly proud relativism. It was a lie then. It is a lie now.

Prosperity allows one to buy out one’s conscience. Don’t make the sale. ‘Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die’ is a chorus only a rich Epicurean can sing. Riches can be deceitful and those that are most deceitful are those that are inherited. America has inherited greater riches than our founders could have ever dreamt, and we, like spoiled little rich children, insist on our delusions. We insist today that no choices have consequences, that there is no virtue and no vice, and daily we become more vicious. The more depraved our lives become, the more fanatically we insist on relativism; we are too ugly to face the mirror.

Where Roman viciousness had a soft landing with the rise of tyranny only, America and the West may have a much harder future. Our viciousness seems ready to spawn, not tyranny, but totalitarianism. Withstand our religion of relativism and be taken to the inquisitors. It’s begun: see Judge: Parents bigots for opposing ‘gay’ lessons.

California’s Constitution Murdered Over Gay Marriage

Be warned brother and sister states, one of your fairest brethren has been murdered by the “judicial” branch of these United States of America and by the elitist political caste. I will tell you of the death California’s constitution; each of you must mourn your own.

American Village Montevallo, Al "The citizenship Trust" 2009 May14The preamble to California‘s constitution was bolder than the preamble to the United States Constitution. It read: “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.” Section 1 of the first article of California’s constitution was more noble still: “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.” This was the tone of those who have had enough of pretense and hypocrisy. These were grave and solemn declarations. They were the words of men and women who have had experience in the great and ongoing struggle for liberty. The rest of California’s constitution once lived up to these brave words. (They’re only paper now. Their life is gone. Cry for yourselves. We are all next.)

For these very self-evident reasons, any refusal by four California judges to enact Proposition 8, by describing it as a revision, would have been to drastically alter the heart of California’s constitution. The simple words of this historic constitutional amendment were, by comparison to its preamble, very ordinary: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Of this California’s Supreme Court judges, despite their personal reservations about Proposition 8 as a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage, had no reservations. Ultimately, in a 6-1 decision, California’s Supreme Court recognized the state they lived in. It’s a state based on the will of the people. Apparently, such a state of affairs was too free of tyranny for our Federal Courts, so they killed it.

The Constitution of California is or tragically was a living document, but its life was not ultimately in the hands of a Supreme Court, and its breath did not wait on a two thirds majority of the state legislature. No, California’s constitution was specifically designed to live and breathe with the people of California. Nor was this done for light and transient causes. California’s constitution was borne from the lessons of the undergraduate school of Error and graduate school of Painful Experience in this Land of Opportunity.

Of all the states in the union, California has the most experience with constitutions. California drafted its original RobberBaronsconstitution in coordination with a military proclamation shortly following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. California then redrafted its constitution only thirty years later. It was in this second draft of its constitution that California began its loathing of political authorities and its love of the initiative and referendum process. Finally, after years of committee analysis, in 1966  California used the mechanisms within the 1897 draft to significantly revise its constitution. This it did with a constitutional convention and approval of the electorate. Ultimately, the revision committee completed the final part of its revision process with a series of tailor made ballot initiatives(CPS 6). Hence, if California’s constitution is one of the most liberal in the union, it is a political path based, not on naïveté , but on experience. In other words, if California gives greater authority to its electorate than any other state, it is because California has learned from its history. Its institutions recognize that those in authority are often as impervious to truth as they are imperfect in character. California’s limits on its Supreme Court Justices, as set out in terms of recall and elective terms, is not done without a very clear understanding of the challenges to freedom that arise in every generation, even in nations governed as constitutional and democratic republics.

This wonderful political document based on the trials and experiences of a concerned, highly educated, and informed citizenry was murdered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Such a document as California’s was not seen fit to live.10th country The other 49 of our brother and sister states be warned!

The problem with the founding father’s notion of an independent judiciary is that our forefathers benignly believed that the check on judges would be the laws and the constitutional documents they embodied. California discovered that such a check was not always convenient. While, on one hand, California gives its chief justice tremendous powers over the interpretation and the culture of interpretation that surrounds California’s laws, the consequences of its painful experiences with thepowerful forces of large business interests during the Civil War period left the people of this state with an extremely sober view of every element of representative government, including the judiciary. California’s judiciary is one of the least independent in the nation. While judges are appointed by the governor, the judges are subject to reelection every twelve years. Furthermore, they are subject to recall at any time by way of the recall petition process.

In the United States Constitution five judges closely divided with four others in the interpretation of the federal constitution plus the silence of the legislature can equal, in practical terms, via stare decisis, an amendment or a revision or of the constitution. Of course the more devided the judiciary, the more divided the legislature, so, in the course of time, judges have often changed the constitutional rudiments of our federal laws. In California, though, the people must also remain silent for a judicial opinion, an interpretation of the law to become, via stare decisis, an amendment to or a drastic revision of the California constitution. Such a state of liberty could no longer be tolerated by the judicial branch of the United States of America, and so California’s Constitution was buried.

The Ninth Circuit court cannot take all the credit for this murder. The final stab in the back came from California’s attorney general who refused to appeal the people’s decision to the United States Supreme Court. Nor can the wounds inflicted by the Supreme bruteCourt of the United States be ultimately named as the cause of California’s death, for that court cannot be completely faulted for failing to hear a case not brought by due process to its steps; but the court provided no remedy. Where were the people of California to go for redress of their injuries? Twice they voted down gay marriage in their state. They even voted to amend that document. Is this liberty?

Sadly, the death blow to California was a knife in the back. It came from her own elites. They ripped with treachery at the very heart of the State Constitution when they did not fulfill their oaths, for with this trivial legal maneuver the elites completely avoided the will of the people of California upon which the entire constitution stood. Who will impeach the attorney general? Who will bring that case? California’s constitution was betrayed to its death by special interests over gay marriage. Could California have survived the many wounds the federal courts ripped through the fine fabric of her laws? Who knows?

In the matter of Proposition 8 and Proposition 22, Californians were not silent. They thought long and hard; twice Californians have clarified the definition of marriage. This itself was an altogether silly exercise forced on them from “above,” but it was, nonetheless, a gracious and constitutional exercise. All those who opposed that definition ought to accept the verdict in the gracious spirit in which it was legally and duly offered. The definition of marriage Californians have declared doesn’t harm anyone, and it does apply equally applied to all. Homosexuals may also get married to one member of the opposite sex, just like every other Californian. Californians do not hold anyone’s sexual orientation against them. The people of California have never been perfect, and they are not now. California’s constitution though, isn’t bad. Other states ought to follow California’s example of liberally granting the final say and authority to the people. After all, where do all constitutions that are worth the ink originate? ALL of that is gone now. We are in the age generations of Californians, in their wisdom, sought to avoid. We’re in the age when an elite politician, not doing the will of the electorate, can side step not only the will of a decade of California’s elections, but that lone politician can eviscerate the very heart of liberty that generations of Californians citizens conferred on their descendants.

How to Recall a California Supreme Court Justice

Information is power if power has already been granted to you. Indeed, in California great political authority has already been granted to its citizens. That power is our history and our legacy, for the California Constitution in Article 2 Section 1 reads:

“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.”

California-Constitution-620x495The voters of California have recently reformed their state by way of a ballot initiative called Proposition 8. This was a reformation because marriage in California (and in all the world) has always been between a man and a woman. Only in recent months did our justices deem it fit to alter our state laws and our constitution. Because the justices are sworn to uphold the constitution, not alter it, they should be recalled for the failure to discharge their duties. The people of California have also been granted this right. It is within our authority as states Article 2 Section 13: “Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer,” and, as the constitutional framers saw fit and in California Supreme Court Justices are elected, not appointed; Article 2 Section 16a:

“Judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected at large and judges of courts of appeal shall be elected in their districts at general elections at the same time and places as the Governor. Their terms are 12 years beginning the Monday after January 1 following their election”

Because in California Supreme Court Justices are not appointed as they are under the federal constitution, but elected, they are subject to recall by the electorate, and rightly so.

The constitutional framers made the manner of recall very simple. The recall process has two parts. Both of these parts are stated plainly in Article 2 Section 14a. The first is:

“Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall. Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable.”

The petition to remove these elected officials is not “reviewable.” That means that the voters could say, “We the people of California petition for the removal of these four Supreme Court Justices because they are dumb-dumb heads, and we don’t like them any more.” Such a claim could not be rejected on legal grounds; however, such simplicity might not be considered overly persuasive either. Nonetheless, the point is that the California Constitution makes this matter simple because its intent is that the people of California, not its lawyers or its judges, define the nature and scope of our laws.

Those who choose to circulate a petition to recall each of these four judges might contemplate a petition that says:

We the people of California, petition for the recall of Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, and Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno for the following reasons:

Unless one is of an unsound mind, seeks personal aggrandizement, or sets himself above the body of laws and the constitution he has taken an oath to uphold, the historic documents surrounding the constitution and the historic contexts of the documents surrounding the family law of California cannot be construed to include homosexuality as a suspect category in civil right laws: these are plainly limited to race, religion and gender.

The historic documents of California and the body of documentation surrounding California can not be held to imply or refer to a right for same sex couples to pretend to marriage by law, and any such conclusion is evidence of an unsound mind, self seeking, or a judicial hubris that pretends to be above the body of laws embodied in the constitution of California he swore to uphold.

In altering the Constitution of California and the body of laws it embodies, this jurist has undermined the civil right to marry for all couples; he has reduced marriage to a mere legal contract defined by states rather than upholding the court’s legitimate responsibility to recognize the union of a man and a woman. This is an ancient contract between two people based on exalting that which nature and the God of nature has set within the heart of all people everywhere without regard to race, religion or gender. This fundamental joining, like the right to free speech, like the right to worship in accordance with our conscience, like the right to free movement and like the right to defend oneself against tyrants and any who would threaten life and property, exists prior to governments and any government that refuses to recognize such rights is illegitimate.

In altering the Constitution of California and the body of laws it embodies, these jurists have undermined civil society, civil conversation, and the peace of this great state, for we have had untold expenditures of time and money resulting only in increased acrimony and civil unrest. This is entirely the fault of this Court. Rather than undermining the documents and laws of this land designed for the express purpose of maintaining civil discourse, a democratic union and the peace of this people, this court could have urged the plaintiffs in “re Marriages” to utilize the ballot initiatives to democratically amend our State’s Constitution. Instead, this court has purposely misrepresented the documents of our state and deceived many of its unwitting populace into feeling that it has “rights” it never received in accordance with the democratic principles of our society.

The ruling of this court expresses an explicit intent to order state representatives to deceive others by applying the historic name and honor of the institution of “marriage” on unions that have no history at all. This legislated fraud would have constituted a tyranny and would have affected young children of every race, religion and gender from the tender ages in which they enter our public school system.”

Article 2 Section 14a also sets out the second condition for demanding the recall of its elected judges: “Proponents (of the recall) have 160 days to file signed petitions.” Article 2 Section 14b and c contains the instructions on filing the petition:

“A petition to recall a statewide officer must be signed by electors equal in number to 12 percent of the last vote for the office, with signatures from each of 5 counties equal in number to 1 percent of the last vote for the office in the county. Signatures to recall Senators, members of the Assembly, members of the Board of Equalization, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts must equal in number 20 percent of the last vote for the office. (b) The Secretary of State shall maintain a continuous count of the signatures certified to that office.”

California is one of the most liberal states in These United States of America in the oldest and truest meaning of that word. California is not liberal because has relativism, high taxes, deficit spending and a “nanny government” written into its constitution. California is proudly one of the most liberal states in the Union because, rather than specifying that the authority and responsibility for governance resides primarily in the representatives of the people, it gives the authority and responsibility for governance to the people in some of the most direct and practical ways ever devised. Californians ought to prize the authority its citizens have been granted, but with this greater authority comes greater responsibility. Californians have a responsibility, a duty, to recall these judges. This matter has not been left to lawyers, other judges, or to elected representatives. They do not, therefore, have the responsibility to recall these judges. Californians, however, do. It is therefore, the people of California who are responsible for the harm these judges have done and will do if they do not act together swiftly and decisively to recall them.

Supreme Deception, Part III: California’s Supreme Court Conferred the Right to Deceive

Because California’s governor and attorney general refused to defend California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage, family law in California has returned to a state of infectious deception outlined in its Supreme Court’s ruling In “re Marriage Cases.

Even on the surface, the idea of same-sex marriage must be either a lie or a deceit; hence, any court’s opinion that is engaged in “legalizing” such a thing must also be replete with lies or immersed in deception. In “redefining” marriage without admitting that it has done so, the Supreme Court of California’s opinion is riddled with deceptions.

First, the California Supreme Court has masked its reduction of marriage to the mere legality that it conferred on civil unions by using the misleading terms “family relationship” and “family unit” to describe homosexual relationships and civil unions.

Second, the Court’s use of this misleading terminology generates the threadbare appearance, at once humorously incompetent and ironically pathetic, that previous court opinions and precedents support the benefits of, and state interests in, gay marriage. In fact, the opinion refers to no actual evidence whatsoever from previous case law or precedent that the state has either an abiding interest in, or that individuals derive substantial benefit from, gay marriage.

interesting

Third, whether by design or by incompetence, the Court’s opinion uses circular reasoning throughout. Either way, such pathetic use of logical fallacies produces yet more deception. Fundamentally, the opinion supposes that marriage is not between a man and a woman so that it may find an offended class and conclude that marriage, indeed, must not be only between a man and a woman.

Finally, not satisfied with an opinion that is so inadequate that it only deceives the public, the Court produces several passages in which it seems to have conferred the right to deceive the public on the plaintiffs. Deceiving people is what the Court has, directly or indirectly, sanctioned by its discussion of “privacy rights” on page 105 below:

“Plaintiffs point out that one consequence of the coexistence of two parallel types of familial relationship (marriage and domestic partnerships) is that in the numerous everyday social, employment, and governmental settings in which an individual is asked whether he or she “is married or single” an individual who is a domestic partner and who accurately responds to the question by disclosing that status will (as a realistic matter) be disclosing his or her homosexual orientation, even if he or she would rather not do so under the circumstances and even if that information is totally irrelevant in the setting in question.”

The opinion of the majority in “re Marriages” explains that disclosing one’s sexual orientation is protected under a right to privacy, but the Court’s resolution of the issue should not be to sanction intentional deception as a remedy. Under this court’s ruling same sex couples may mislead an employer, whether it is a government office or a private enterprise, by leading individuals to believe that their status is heterosexual. That is, they may rest assured that when they say they are “married”, their employer or insurance company will understand the ordinary sense of the word and assume they are heterosexual. Doesn’t the state have an interest in deploring all acts of deception, especially as it relates to its own offices? Instead, this court has not only sanctioned such deception, it has actually provided the means of deception.

Sadly, this willingness to deceive ourselves and lie to one another is increasingly becoming the new “normal,” normal as in the steady decline under a terminal sickness. Little by little real normalcy, the abiltiy of a human to function without hinderance by a disease, fades as the body progressively sickens. The remedy, America, is the truth. Start telling the truth, no matter what the cost.

Gruber-on-the-lies-told-to-pass-Obamacare1-1024x576

Is deception, then, simply a matter of course and necessity to the California Supreme Court? Shouldn’t we conclude that the Court’s view of deception as justified in pursuing equality to be evidence that the court is not foolish or idiotic, but is, instead, purposely doing everything in its power to deceive us with its circular logic and its abuse of precedents as evidence? Furthermore, isn’t this willingness to confer the right to deceive to the plaintiffs evidence that the court’s first and most profound deception –its absurd reduction of marriage from a human innate ability and reality, having nothing to do with government, to a wardrobe of rags handed to “citizens” by “benevolent,” god-like courts– blatantly disingenuous? Isn’t the court’s willingness to confer the right to deceive on the plaintiffs at the altar an idolatrous “equality” proof that five highly intelligent, and seemingly well-educated men and women set out to purposely deceive us all? How great is the magnitude of an evil that must be advanced by people of such ill will?

Nor is the foregoing deception seemingly advocated by the Court without potentially serious implications for insurance, credit, and medical institutions. Although the court recognized that some of these requests for information are not relevant, the discretion on when to deceive seems to be entirely in the hands of a member of a same sex partnership.

Some may argue that the destruction of the word “marriage” and its meaning would result in “marriage” no longer implying heterosexuality. Hence, there would be no deception. However, until the process of reconstructing documents in which one’s sexual orientation is necessary information and, instance by instance, allowing courts to decide upon this necessity, many instances of deception on important matters will have been perpetrated and seemingly sanctioned by this Court.

Nor is such deception a necessary instrument for achieving equality in the United States of America. No one can seriously imagine women seeking equal opportunity being able to get away with bubbling in “man” on their employment applications. No, in order to equalize the playing field women proudly declared their gender and insisted on access. Likewise, African Americans proudly declared their identities as they demanded the equal rights they were entitled to under the law.

Perhaps religions have had the “option” of “going public” with their beliefs through the years. Notice how well that has gone? The religions such as Islam that state their creeds by their apparel and their deeds have a far greater opportunity for recognition and accommodation under U.S. Laws than do the more timid believers who obey court and statute despite the outcry of their consciences. Secrecy is no ally of civil rights. Not only does the Court appear to confer the right to deceive on a special segment of the population, it undermines the very equality is seeks to establish.

On page 117-118 the Court issues a pronouncement that, essentially, concedes the right to deceive to all same sex couples in California while, at the same time, insisting that all citizens of the state of California who have direct dealings with the state government perpetrate deception on others:

“As discussed above, (page 81) because of the long and celebrated history of the term marriage’ and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship (my italics) unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.”

First of all, the word marriage does not refer to the commonly understood words “family relationship.” The new terminology introduced by the George court names marriage a “family relationship.” In the same way that a cursory reading of this ruling and an assumption of judiciary accuracy with language might mislead a reader, the use of the term “marriage” for same sex couples has the potential for misleading many citizens of the state and the nation. The problem is that, if nothing else, same sex civil unions are very novel, and indeed they are an alternate relationship relative to that of traditional marriage. Novel and alternative are not pejoratives, nor should anyone expect them to be.

By the courts own admission, by its stated design, the venerable history of marriage will be conferred, naturally, on same sex couples. However, that is deceptive precisely because same sex unions have no history at all. The application of the commonly understood word to marriage to same sex couples is, therefore misleading and orwelldeceptive. Even if there is a tradition of prejudice towards gay couples, prejudice in every other area of American life is not overcome by way of deception. Prejudice is overcome by being who we are, and by proving, with the equal opportunities we are granted, that hurtful prejudgments are no more than the products of ignorance.

Marriage has a long and celebrated history and has been widely sanctioned in every community in history (even if not always faithfully adhered to!) because of what it is. The use of the word “marriage” in California is now new, controversial, and alternate from every other known use of the word for 6,000 years of recorded history. Let us as Californians be clear about this: marriage in California now, under the ruling of the George court, no longer means “marriage.” If you think it does, you are deceived. If after reading this series of articles you are deceived, then you are deceiving yourself. However, when state employees, whether they be doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, policemen, or firemen say “marriage,” the common understanding of marriage will come to the mind of the hearers. Government employees everywhere may be directed to say “marriage” with the intended new meaning concocted by this court; however, those that hear what they say will not necessarily understand what is meant. Indeed, who really can understand this definition of marriage as a “family relationship” given meaning through a concoction of legal rights pulled from a seascape of irrelevant references?

The entire progress of this Court’s legislation, and it is certainly that, and its explanations are immersed in deception. It is by this means that it seeks to persuade us of its equanimity in making us its partners in its deceptions. Whether these deceptions are accidental or intended, we will all be employed in them. This court’s ruling, whether by incompetence or by malice, evinces a design to reduce us under an absolute despotism of the state. It demands that we ourselves become the instruments of deception. The state can stand in no greater tyranny to its subjects than that it demand them to dissemble in order to comply with its dictates.

On page 8 of this opinion, Judge George wrote,

“We need not decide in this case whether the name marriage’ is invariably a core element of the state constitutional right to marry so that the state would violate a couple’s constitutional right even if perhaps in order to emphasize and clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of marriage the state were to assign a name other than marriage as the official designation of the formal family relationship for all couples.”

This is incorrect. If the opinion of this court is that marriage is no longer marriage and that one new institution is fitting for all, then let the Court proudly proclaim this! Instead, this court lets stand a document that rids California of marriage entirely without even the slightest acknowledgment of its radicalism. The Court seems to embrace deception for a remedy to the plaintiffs claims of privacy and its ruling encourages the deception of the entire state by insisting that government officials use a new, and impossibly complex and incoherent legal definition in communicating with children and minors about marriage.

Oh… no adults would be lying to children… And fear not California, your little children will not be deceived. No, even they know what marriage is. Instead, they will assume that policemen, firemen, teachers, doctors and nurses are cowardly liars or deluded morons. Good work Chief Justice George, and let us give thanks to all those members of the court that concurred.