Posts Tagged ‘marriage’

Facebook Post on Gay Marriage Laws

February 17, 2014

https://www.facebook.com/leonard.daneman/posts/239001269618617?notif_t=like

Homosexual Agenda — The Legal Evolution from Sodomy to Marriage

February 11, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court Claims Jurisdiction Over Natural Law

Under Art I, Sec 10 the judiciary has an Obligation to Contract. In other words, it cannot change or interfere with contract unless there is a compelling public policy.

In the recent ‘legalization’ of Same-Sex Marriage Contract, Justice Kennedy ignored existing contract in marriage and forced his will upon Nature Itself, claiming Jurisdiction over “Nature’s Laws and the God of Nature.”

How? He declared Sodomy Equal (=) to Heterosexual Coitus, a biological impossibility, by Judicial Notice in Declaration that Homosexual LOVE is the same as Heterosexual LOVE.

This is erroneous for at least two reasons: One is; Justice Kennedy cannot Quantify or prove his statement. And, two;  the supreme court has no jurisdiction over natural law, in this case Biology. For example: A court cannot adjudicate a natural law or process as being the property of an entity or human agency (see Patent Law).

Kennedy created (intentionally or inadvertently) a Conflict of Law that criminalizes Christianity and the historic definition of Family and Legacy, the very foundations of our culture. That is what happens when you screw around with Natural Law.

Of course, Natural Law has been in the sights of Progressives for decades. In fact, it was Elena Kagan (now Associate Justice) who wrote the manifesto against Natural Law during her tenure at Harvard. In contrast to her denial of natural law, and nature’s God, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

Mr. Kennedy, does the love of a lesbian adoptive mother equal the love of a natural parent? Quantify that!

To undo the damage done by the Kennedy Decision, a Humpty Dumpty tale . . . but this Jurisdiction Over and in Conflict with Natural Law is now being played out in the Global Warming Saga! So-called World Governments have no understanding or power, or jurisdiction, over CO2 production. Their scientific claims cannot be tested.

In fact, one may suggest that water vapor (usually if not always in conjunction with thermic reactions creating CO2) is the greater Greenhouse Gas (see Greenhouse Effect). Yet, if governments used police powers to stop production of water vapor, our planet would indeed heat up and become a dessert.

As CO2 and Water Vapor are impossible to separate out of the chemical equation for combustion, banning CO2 is also banning H2O . . . inadvertently a death sentence to Planet Earth.

Supreme Court Refuses to Address Alabama Constitutional Definition of Marriage

Update 4/27/2015 — The conflation of protected class (enhanced punishment) with equal protection is flawed. The addition of ‘sex’ to the 14th Amendment and state constitutions referred to ‘male’ vs. ‘female,’ not sexuality which is a widely varied activity, not a class. In addition, the issue is one of contract, not human rights. Marriage is a contract of ancient sources and requires a man and a woman to perfect, the ‘elements’ required are 1) Public Declaration, 2) Solemnization by State or Clergy, and 3) Consummation, the third element missing. As mentioned earlier, proof of no consummation is biology of nature itself, and the fact that any natural issue must be illegitimate, the other sexual gamete required to come from outside the partnership. Therefore, there cannot be wedlock as the issue is out-of-wedlock.

In a test, Polygamy has more right to equal protection than Gay Marriage. After all, Polygamy is biblical, historic, natural (involving coitus) and practiced by major religions to this very day.

Update 2/12/2015 — The U.S. Supreme Court has passed addressing the Alabama Federal Court declaring the definition of marriage in the Alabama constitution; unconstitutional.

There is a consistent argument in the state superior courts applying the ‘equal protection’ clause rather than the body of marriage law itself. This ‘redefinition’ of marriage per se has consequences on that body of contract and probate law, which risks unintended consequences, i.e., Conflicts of Law.

The logic of applying Equal Protection to homosexual partners is fatally flawed. It has only been since 2003, twelve years, since SCOTUS decriminalized state laws against Sodomy. The activist agenda proceeded to make gays a protected class through ‘hate crime’ statutes, and then Human Rights laws guaranteeing protection against discrimination in housing, employment, and in some cases even speech. The creation, in some state constitutions, of a Protected Class introduced ‘class’ without applying the classic legal test if homosexuals per se were a true class and thus standing as a class. Finally, that ‘class’ status opened the door for judges to misinterpret their state constitution ‘equal protection clauses,’ which specified only equal being a ban on discriminating a man or a woman because of their sex, M or F. This is fair, but a ridiculous example is when a man successfully nuisance-sued Hooters restaurant for not hiring him as a waitress.

However, the fatal break in logic applied by these judges was to conflate non-discrimination between men and women with sexual acts, only the root of the word, sex, being the same. However, sex is a noun in the equal protection clause, male or female, while inclusion of homosexual acts is a verb. Therefore, the judges have declared that Sodomy is Equal to Coitus, which is hardly the case. One is a mere carnal act, the other natural love and procreative; one cannot consummate a marriage contract, the other can (only exemptions medical factors known to both parties prior to the marriage).

Legal Question involving Jurisprudence

Has the court revised the Alabama State Constitution? Does the Judiciary have jurisdiction over constitutional revision, or does that specifically require a change in the law per the constitution itself and through the state legislature?

Conclusion: There may be a reason the Alabama protest, lead by former Chief Justice Roy Moore, are probate judges and that is they know marriage law because they deal with the vast body of it as their special jurisdiction.

Update 11/17/2014 — There is a logical test for the existence of Gay Marriage as a De Facto concept; in Fact, let alone Nature. Why marry at all, unless to create a family? Couples in partnership exist in or out of marriage.

The legal case of famed New Mexico Navajo artist R.C. Gorman and his partner in life and production of prints is a good example. His partner was found to be entitled to half the estate related to print reproduction. Therefore, not even contract is required in some cases.

A young couple marries to create a family. Marriage law is indelibly intertwined with Family Law, law dealing with protection of property and legacy viz. the wife, children and relatives, i.e., kith and kin. It is a contract, and therefore the term ‘wedlock.’

An older couple may marry, but it is mostly a romantic gesture with legal ramifications, and the effect on the estate must be considered. For example, if one partner is of substantial wealth, the effect on the succession of the estate to non-biological children and family must be considered.

LOGICAL TEST: Any issue of a same sex partnership must, BY NATURAL LAW, come from a gamete (sperm or egg DNA) OUTSIDE OF THE PARTNERSHIP, i.e., out of wedlock. THEREFORE, WEDLOCK DOES NOT AND CANNOT EXIST.

Therefore, there is an analog between considerations of an older couple who cannot or find it unwise to have children on an estate, and that of same sex couples. In addition, there are now cases in which the third party, that of the ‘donated’ gamete, can claim rights of support and succession. The ban on same sex marriage is not just a law of nature, but protection of biologically related kin from claims on their rightful succession by a ‘bastard,’ or unrelated party.

Update 12/2/2013 — The New Mexico Supreme Court made the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couple unconstitutional, but without defining marriage itself. This is irresponsible and an incredible oversight of an issue essential to legal analysis leading to a valid holding.

Then, there is the question if the 14th Amendment’s ‘equal protection’ clause even applies to same-sex couples. A single homosexual person has equal protection as a citizen, but does that extend to the laws governing marriage? Again, marriage must be defined and the creation, out of whole cloth, after eons of marriage being the creation of a new family out of representatives of two families. Note: Incest denies marriage because the couple are too closely associated within one family because of the risk of genetic recessive traits damaging the child, not to mention the historic coveting of family wealth.

On that note, in the case of same-sex marriage, the converse argument is that there are no genetic risks as same sex gametes do not produce life.

Speaking of unconstitutional, Hawaii, under a socialist governor, passed legislation approving gay marriage; however, in direct conflict with their constitutional protections of traditional marriage. Therefore, like the concept of a gay marriage itself, in conflict with higher law, the constitution; and so the legislated act is invalid.

In another recent case from Texas, a gay couple married in Massachusetts filed for divorce. The judge only recognized such a marriage as void, not recognized in Texas, therefore null and void, as would a traditional marriage be annulled if unconsummated. Here is a new attack, in Mississippi related to that Texas decision. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131201/DAADKSQ83.html

I know some may feel my analysis, or opinion, to be harsh and insulting, but this is a matter of natural law. Violations of Natural Law are unique in they are irreconcilable with the human spirit and sentience. Aside from the successful Supreme Court challenge to Lawrence v. Texas, the law must NOT conflate Sodomy with Coitus. It is impossible, and effrontery to nature and to the education of children.

*  *  *

Homosexuals suffer a psychosexual disorder due to a failure to mature socially and sexually. Their defense mechanism is a glorification of their sickness. It is a psychosis; because they ascribe religiously to a fallacy and are unable to distinguish Right from Wrong. Their Pre-conscious constantly reminds them that their perversion is wrong, resulting in lashing out at anything consciously reminding them of that fact. They over-react and act out . . . they display their offense to nature openly and ‘artfully,’ as if that proves the critics bigots wrong.

They demand equality not for sake of justice, but to try to force natural law itself to bend to their will. They want sex with children . . . freedom from STDs . . . and play act Marriage. They demand civil rights and equal justice, when their very organs belie their fundamental claim. Their sex organs are male, or female, and designed for copulation with the opposite sex. The result, the joining of a male and female gamete, is procreation, the very reason marriage contract has developed in the law.

Due to a new article on Obama’s education ‘Czar,’ Kevin Jennings at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124704 , I am transcribing my 2005 Family Law exam essay. I had to do this from memory because my teacher and program director at the TVI paralegal program confiscated my exam.

Defining Marriage

Since Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned in Lawrence v. Texas, decriminalizing state anti-sodomy laws, the homosexual agenda has now turned to marriage for sodomite couples as a civil right under 14th Amendment equal protection.

New Hampshire passed a co-habitation agreement which contractualized same-sex relationships on terms equal to traditional marriage. More recently, Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage. In anticipation of one state crossing over the line of traditional marriage, most states have added a ban on gay marriage to their Domestic Relations laws in order to counter the constitutional full faith and credit clause (Art. IV, § 1). For this reason, gay marriage will inevitably be under the scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Definition: Marriage is a publically declared contract between a man and a woman, solemnized by the state as a husband and a wife. The contract is perfected through consummation. State domestic relations laws define marriage and its promise in contract, requiring specific performances, the most significant being consummation. Consummation is coital sex, not sodomy. A sodomite relationship is impossible to consummate, and therefore unperfected and a sham, null, void ab initio.

Comparative lineage determines distribution of deceased spouse’s estate by consanguinity and affinity, or blood-lines versus mere marital kinship. While a spouse has clearly defined first rights, successive claims favor the blood-line linearly, followed by lateral relationships.

Therefore, for the sake of this discussion, marriage is legally construed to define the spousal relationship and property distribution upon death first to children of the bloodline. In same sex ‘marriage,’ there is no bloodline unless outside of the so-called marriage. This creates a conflict of law, a fallacy, an effrontery to kith and kin because property is now diverted immediately to a non-bloodline.

The Problem with Same-Sex Marriage

In a same-sex union there is not a husband or wife viz. a male plus female gamete; therefore no natural offspring or blood lineage. This is because, obviously, homosexual sex (greek: Σόδομα Sódoma, latin: peccatum Sodomiticum, sin of sodomy) cannot result in conception. Consummation is impossible and therefore the ‘marriage’ is void, sham and exposed to annulment. Proponents of gay marriage argue that their sex acts are equal to heterosexual intercourse and therefore consummation is not an issue (See Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples in New York by THE COMMITTEE ON LESBIAN AND GAY RIGHTS, THE COMMITTEE ON SEX AND LAW, AND THE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS).

But, their arguments aside, most people believe that anyone having only performed oral or anal sex is still a virgin. This belies the efficacy of gay sex being able to consummate, for if those acts maintain virginity then the marriage is exposed to annulment (Incapacity for sexual intercourse as ground for annulment, 52 A.L.R.3d 589).

The right to marry is not the question, rather if same-sex unions meet the definition of marriage. If not, then it is the definition of marriage itself that is being challenged.

The palette of legal standing runs the gamut from Pursuit of Happiness, Equal Rights, to Privacy Rights in creation of a Household. However, if Marriage and Family is to survive it must claim sole and unique jurisdiction as to its definition and practice. The attack on the Family from sexual promiscuity, the Marriage Penalty, and Estate Taxes has a final enemy, Same-Sex Union which is a non-sequitor biologically, historically, and under existing Domestic Relations and Probate laws.

[Following is an essay written for a Domestic Relations law class. The department staff tried to kick me out of the program for ‘hate speech,’ but my facts were too well cited.]

The Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Revolution

WARNING: Due to the topic at hand, it is unavoidable that certain sexual practices are discussed. Some readers may be offended.

A battle for homosexual rights is sweeping the country’s courts. As a class, the gay community is demanding historically unprecedented levels of respect and acceptance. Their last battleground is a legal union standing equally in the place of traditional marriage. To accomplish this, gays successfully presented themselves as a class demanding special protections (hate crimes, antidiscrimination statutes). Now, with rights equal to marriage in domestic relations acts, it is inevitable that they will sue for equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

In Lawrence v. Texas, police burst in on two gays in the act of sex after a neighbor’s complaint of possible violence. Subsequently, privacy rights for gay sodomy were established by the U.S. Supreme Court, which claimed jurisdiction when there were discrepancies noted between Alabama and Texas anti-sodomy laws, i.e., gay only vs. all sodomy. With the sodomy laws repealed (on the books in twenty-six states), gays were suddenly elevated to a ‘clean hands’ legal status. Thus, Lawrence created a new legal class eager to carry to fight all the way to the altar.

In Zablocki v. Redhail marriage was held to be a fundamental right, but 14th Amendment and common law attempts to create gay marriage still failed. However, Massachusetts recently ratified gay marriage with full knowledge of constitutional Full Faith and Credit ramifications, essentially forcing other states to accept such marriages under the ‘place of celebration’ rule. In response to struggle for gay marriage, the Federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, signed by Pres. Bill Clinton). Additionally, eleven state referendums to-date have overwhelmingly denied gay marriage. America, from its beginnings, inarguably a Judeo-Christian nation, rejects the concept. However, gay activist lawyers have found sympathetic liberal judges and are fomenting the controversy state-by-state.

In New Mexico, SB 576 is being crafted to create a ‘separate-but-equal’ arrangement called the Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act for both gay and hetero relationships. This is a nice try, but substituting a legal definition with synonymous rights and privileges to marriage is transparently deceptive. In Section 3 of the Act, it surreptitiously elevates an already acceptable contract within co-habitation to that of marriage. This opens the door to continued judicial activism through Plessy v. Ferguson’s holding against ‘separate-but-equal’ discrimination.

Lawrence v. Texas, reached the Supreme Court due to inconsistencies between Texas and Alabama law concerning sodomy. Alabama banned its practice for both male and females; Texas only banned it between men. The Texas ban was not intended to discriminate between gays and heterosexuals. It is arguable that when the law was written, the practice was assumed not to be common, popular, or necessary in normal sexual intercourse. The legal concept of ‘common knowledge’ at that time must be included in discerning the legislator’s intent when writing the law. Or, perhaps it was indeed a law specifically against ‘buggery.’

Lawrence shocked its dissenters, for it ignored the historical, medical, and psychological ramifications of a legitimized gay culture. The Lawrence court admitted in dicta that it was relying upon international law to create a harmonious, global holding. The court was trying to remove discrimination between gay and heterosexual practices, making them equal. However, the definition of gay sex is sodomy (buggery), and falls short of sexual intercourse, coitus, or copulation. Encyclopedia Britannica defines sexual intercourse as the, “reproductive act in which the male reproductive organ (in humans and other higher animals) enters the female reproductive tract.” Copyright © 1994-2000 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Genuflecting to international law, the Supreme Court ignored biological facts discriminating between two unequal acts.

In the inevitable gay activism in the courts, Equal Protection is a moot point if the gay class can prove they are ‘separate-but-equal’ under domestic relations acts, substantive law, and marriage being a fundamental right. On its face, the argument is sound. But, if one analyzes gay culture using probate law (intrinsic to marriage), the marriage contract, and the state’s strict scrutiny over issues protecting citizen’s health, welfare, and safety, those who wish to protect marriage and traditional American families have a fighting chance.

The court must recall the words of Justice Douglass in Engle v. Vitale, cited by Justice Scalia in his Lawrence dissent; that the history and tradition of the United States must be a consideration. Yes, our cultural values have equal standing in court, and we will fail our culture if this concept is not incorporated into the legal argument against gay marriage.

Without the Law, there is no Sin

There is no barrier for gays to protect their interests and their relationships. Marvin-type contracts can control joint and severable property, and corporations have adopted group health plans that include benefits to long-term roommates that share a household. Co-habitation contracts can be devised by any competent domestic relations attorney. An additional advantage to contract is that, unlike a voidable, unconsummated marriage, it cannot be challenged or annulled.

Psychology 101

I submit that gay activism to redefine marriage is a mass deception driven by this group’s psychological ‘transference’ of guilt and self-loathing, in order to have the stigma of their practices legally removed. The gay subclass is subconsciously denying its deep-seated guilt and acting out against its perceived persecutors, i.e., the Judeo-Christian culture itself.

The apostles of Christ explained that it was law that actually defined sin. Ergo, without law, there was no sin; and therefore those who know they are sinning hate the law (Cf. 1 Timothy: 8-11). Continuing the religious theme, J. Douglas in Engle v. Vitale cited McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 563, whose dissent opined that “if a religious leaven is to worked into the affairs of our people, it is to be done by individuals and groups, not by the Government.” To borrow from Douglas’ own ‘leaven’ metaphor; indeed, a little ‘leaven’ (less than 3% of the population is gay) is about to “leaven the whole loaf” (Galatians 5:9). Biblically, leaven represented sin.

It is vital that gay relationships remain subordinate to heterosexual relationships. To discriminate between natural relations that create strong families and unnatural relations that are finite and fruitless is not cruel or bigoted; it is merely logical. It also sends a message to the homosexual psyche that its angst cannot be acted out intrusively at the expense of both natural and common law.

Deprecatingly calling heterosexuals ‘breeders’reveals the true nature of their insidious and unrelenting attack on the dominant, natural culture. In the section, ‘Conclusion,’ the reason why heterosexuals will always hate homosexuals and why gay marriage can never stand equally in the place of traditional marriage will be explained. But first . . .

A Definition of Marriage

Lawyers see marriage as merely a contract. Three contractual elements are required to marry: 1) Public declaration, 2) A witness to the ceremony, and 3) Consummation. Based on the definition of sexual intercourse, it is impossible for a gay couple to consummate their marriage. Compare a common practice of Catholic girls who grant their boyfriends anal sex in order to preserve their virginity. It follows that anal sex between a married man and woman will not consummate their marriage. Therefore, gay marriage cannot be legally binding.

Marriage, however, is also the blending of two families via a ‘male’ and ‘female’ from each family. ‘Blending’ is a deliberate choice of words, for not only are the fortunes of the families commingled, but also their genetic characteristics. Values; moral, religious, political, ethical, of both families are transmitted to their offspring, imparting both a familial resemblance and continuation of reputation. This is the legacy and heritage commonly associated with a ‘good’ family.

This definition is in line with a synonymous use of the word ‘marry.’ In both cooking and perfumery a combination of ingredients can create new complex and pleasing tastes and aromas, but they must be allowed to repose for a period of time for the flavors to ‘marry,’ or more subtly combine.

Once married, probate laws protect each spouse through community property and household exemptions. A Will and Testament is the ultimate contract, but Intestate succession may control how property is distributed upwards, laterally, and downwards to each spouse’s kin. However, there is no possible consanguinity between gay couples. Therefore, probate law does not, and cannot apply to them. For it to do so would violate the concept of consanguinity, the very blood of the family itself.

Marriage consists of husband and wife. The gender of each has no need for further explanation. It is common knowledge and understood. Each has traditional and practical roles in the family. When a married couple is genealogically charted, the two families merge and, hopefully, continue like branches of a tree through offspring. A careful record of a genealogy is a treasured document for its history, and for purposes of legal division of property through inheritance.

The entry of a gay marriage into a family tree is a lifeless stump. Branches may be formed by adoption (legal within intestate succession) and their heterosexual subsequent offspring, but there is no possible consanguinity (Cf. the latest holding in Matter of John Doe, 3013-1980, N.Y. (2005)). It is analogous to a foreign grafting that is infertile. The botanist would cut those ‘branches’ off if fruitless.

There is one other form of marriage that should concern anyone. ‘Nonage’ marriage is when an older man gets away with marrying a 13 to 15 year old girl. While these marriages are voidable, if the state takes no action and the girl becomes pregnant, reaches the age of 16 with parental consent, or reaches the age of consent herself, the marriage becomes binding. For years, the North American Man-Boy Love (NAMBLA) has been promoting their right to seek out and have sex with pubescent boys. If gay marriage is held to be a fundamental right, and its denial unconstitutional discrimination, young boys will be their next target.

A Definition of Homosexuality

When gay activists say that everyone is potentially gay, they are partially correct. The ‘homosexual’ phase is technically a transient stage every developing child passes through in the maturation process (Merck Manual, p 1572, 16th Ed. 1992). However, most make it successfully through puberty and develop a healthy attraction to the opposite sex. This includes the usual result of sexual intercourse, childbirth. Therefore, the passage to adulthood includes a sacrifice of self, denying prepubescent narcissism for the benefit of a family.

Unfortunately, a small percentage fail to achieve full passage into adulthood. Their puberty phase balks at full maturation and reverts back to ‘homosexuality.’ The American Psychiatric Association describes this distorted pubescence as an ‘inversion’ back into the ‘homosexual’ phase (Merck Manual, supra).

There is also the phenomenon of ‘situational’ homosexuality. This is the occurrence of homosexual dominance and submission in closed environments, e.g., currently prisons, and, historically, long ship voyages and long military campaigns.

Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Merck Manual as a psychosexual disorder. Ironically, homophobia remains in the manual. Regardless of the American Psychiatric Association’s comment on the emerging cultural acceptance of homosexuality, the statistics reveal its dangers and caveats. For example, due to the impossibility of pregnancy, homosexuals are promiscuous. 28% of male homosexuals have had over 1000 partners. The spread of STDs and lesion infections associated with homosexual sex are therefore accelerated, and passed into the heterosexual population via bi-sexual men (70% of homosexual men claim they have had sex with married men (Ibid). Two-thirds of homosexual men and women are capable of heterosexual union and find it pleasurable, but are preferentially homosexual. Ibid. The key word here is ‘preference.’ Therefore, homosexuality is not genetic. Also, it is impossible for a recessive trait that results in a non-reproductive being to be passed on. Eventually, it will breed out of the line.

While the health-related problems of promiscuity may be construed as an argument for gay marriage, statistics show that only 25% of homosexual men are capable of long-term monogamous relationships. Additionally, in a subculture that values youth and physical attractiveness, older gays suffer from isolation, rejected by the very culture that once embraced them. This is the saddest fact of the homosexual culture. Historically, in societies that accepted homosexuality, the youths trapped into the homosexual lifestyle were merely sex slaves. When they aged, they were discarded.

A Question of Constitutionality

A landmark legal opinion is Hawaii’s Baehr v. Lewin. It held that while there is an express right to privacy, the concept of same-sex marriage has no roots in the “traditions or collective conscience” of society, Therefore, denying gay marriage was not a violation of Equal Protection. The right for gays to marry is not “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if it were sacrificed.”

The 14th Amendment requires equal protection. “No person shall be…denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of the person’s civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of race, religion, sex, or ancestry.” However, the serious health issues specific to sodomy and promiscuity, e.g., recent new serious strains of HIV and syphilis, invokes two forms of state scrutiny.

The Rational Basis Test states that discrimination in a law is constitutional if the law rationally furthers a legitimate state interest. The Strict Scrutiny Test presumes discrimination to be unconstitutional unless the state shows compelling state interests that justify the discrimination, and also shows that the law is narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of constitutional rights. In our modern culture with birth control and the repeal of adultery laws, a greater portion of our population is at risk from homosexually generated STD’s.

Compelling state interests include the health, welfare, and safety of its citizens. Footnote 4 of the Carolene case was interpreted to give a state compelling interests in eliminating ‘impurities’ within private contracts. The health interest to minimize STDs casts a shadow on sodomy practices of both sexes, but predominantly gay sex. Again, this may seem to support the need for gay marriage, but statistics cited above show that only a small percentage of gays are interested in monogamy, or even capable of it.

The issue is not co-habitation and contractual law, but the institution of marriage and intestate succession in probate. Aside from the impossibility of consummation, is the complete lack of consanguinity a factor that will constitutionally discriminate gay marriage from traditional marriage?

In 1999, Vermont’s Supreme Court held that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses was against the state constitution. Their rationale was the constitutional test of ‘underinclusivity’ as interpreted through the Common Benefits Clause. They compared the trend of long-term nonreproductive gay relationships to the small percentage of traditional marriages that could not or were unwilling to have children. With this juxtaposition, the judge created an equivalency, and therefore a departure from the state’s interest in supporting traditional marriage, which was to connect a married father and mother to procreation and raising of children.

Vermont cited 1.5 to 5 million lesbian couples currently raising adopted or artificially inseminated children as being equal to the traditional family, and therefore ‘inclusivity’ applied for common benefits. However, in these lesbian couples, the non-consangual ‘spouse’ was required to adopt the child born to her partner if she wanted parental rights. This is a difficult concept because how can you adopt if the biological mother is still alive with the child? Again, this stretching of parental rights was abrogated further in the above-cited John Doe case.

The history of warming tolerance for gay couples includes the decriminalization of fellatio, 7th Amendment anti-discrimination based on sexual orientation, and adoption rights. As long as sodomy was illegal, gays could not complete their agenda. But, the repeal of state anti-sodomy laws by Lawrence v. Texas cleared the way for gay couples as a legitimate class. Suddenly they had ‘clean hands’ and standing in court.

One distinction as a valid state interest is the element of potential consanguinity of offspring between the married couple as a basis for intestate succession. This is impossible between gay couples and is an artifice of family continuity on a family tree. This obviates the ‘underinclusive’ opinion of the Vermont court. The natural child of one partner, but not their natural issue, is limited to inheritance only from the separate and, or ‘pass-through’ of the biological parent. To create community property between homosexual couples violates the blood-line . . . the strongest line of intestate succession. Even if most states now consider an adopted child a full heir, the issue of biological consanguinity is a sanguine argument against gay marriage.

In the end, Vermont ordered the State to afford gay couples rights equal to that of marriage, but would not approve of gay marriage per se as such a radical change would have “disruptive and unforeseen consequences.” Indeed, the U.S. Constitution’s Article IV full faith and credit clause is being tested under the new Massachusetts gay marriage law. It also challenges the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) .

Conclusion:

Homosexuality is a psychosexual disorder endemic to psychologically compromised youth, and wealthy, indolent, immoral societies. It is also a brutal practice of domination among closely quartered, immoral men in isolated conditions.

Today’s gay activism can be explained both psychologically and organically. Psychologically, gays are desperate for self-esteem and justification for their unnatural behavior. It is unconscionable that the small subclass within the gay class that is capable of long-term monogamous relationships (amounting to less than 1% of the U.S. population) is striving to drastically change the definition of marriage. The rush of gays to marriage merely for the purpose of challenging the law supports the interpretation that such ‘marriages’ are a sham and void.

To survive, the gay class seeks to ‘reproduce.’ However, it cannot. While gamete donors and implements of self-insemination are available, the child is not the result of a legal marital union, nor is it guaranteed to become homosexual like its ‘parents.’

Absent reproduction, the need for homosexuals to replace themselves and increase their population and influence means they must induce prepubescent and confused pubescent youths to become trapped into homosexuality. This is the true and indefatigable source of hatred for homosexuals, because families will instinctively strive to protect their children.

Medicine, religion, consummation of marriage and probate law are potent arguments against homosexual unions. Let there, instead, be contract. Last year, the law decriminalized sodomy and the homosexual class now has ‘clean hands.’ However, the law cannot ‘sanitize’ homosexual practice. Its history is too replete with negative intents and consequences.

Final thoughts

For a marriage to be legal, it must be consummated . . . otherwise it can be challenged or voided. Biologically speaking, it is physically impossible to consummate a gay marriage. Yes, sex takes place, but the intercourse is non-productive sexually as it is equal to masturbatory and mutually gratification techniques adults employ to avoid productive sex, e.g., oral sex, mutual masturbation, and anal sex. In fact, these are sexual practices more seen as foreplay leading up to ‘sex.’ Even more convincing is the fact that many women who value their virginity allow their boyfriends anal sex. If anal sex preserves their virginity, then anal sex is not the consummated sexual act.

As to being born gay, we can say that everyone is born bi-sexual. It is a logical proposition because gays and straights are all born with the same sexual organs and proclivities. However, to take this logic ad absurdum, we are then all equally born pederasts, necrophiles, and beastiophiles. I think you get are getting it; that which deviates from productive sexual intercourse is ipso facto a deviant choice and immoral.