Saturday, June 27, 2015

Supreme Court Decision . Why it happened.

While celebrations go on , Blind Justice missed
a lot . Here is why.
The Supreme Court of the United States was obviously drawn to the  Same sex Marriage issue , as much as they should of  stayed out of the decision of the Federal Government defining Marriage . It's a simple twist of words that set off the whole legal argument that should have been kept behind closed doors . *** I am giving my own OPINION to this . I am giving my  first chastisement first to the religious right , and  their long  decades war of mixing religion and politics , trying to manipulate state legislation to make governments define what marriage is . AS SILLY as it seems the Supreme Court never should had been involved .(1)>> The religious right , the fledgling GOP right wingers deserved  what the Supreme Court did . People should understand why the Court Justice's did . There was too much furor raised to center around a group of people ( gays) which some states were drafting laws in the guise of" Religious Freedom" to persecute another group of people who did not conform what is traditionally "normal". Yet our American society can't define what really is normal,as far as behavior anymore . I have held a standard , so I repeat it here . What you do in bed should be your business . There should be no government intrusion in your bed politics , this issue is just the same . My second chastisement goes to the gay community . They have to prove to me that they can stay in a single relationship  marriage . This can be the greatest threat to gay marriage . Like heterosexuals , gays find themselves with failed and abusive partnerships . If they have multiple partners, they  can find themselves exposed to HIV , by the way it  has not gone away . You must remember too that marriage is about family , its about children & not the self centered , selfish quest to fulfill lustful sexual desires ( as much as common in straight couples) but most common today with deviant sexual practices . Which today are being accepted slowly through the media as normalization.So , if the gay community can prove this , they are not a deviation of societal morn's.Then surly I could give my blessing to the Supreme Court decision .

Justice is still blind :
Why are the "people" not jumping on this ? . Many States in America prohibit mentally challenged  people from-marrying. More than 30 states either prohibit or restrict marriage between people with "developmental disabilities" (another term for mental retardation). Such marriage laws are rarely enforced. But when they are, a competency hearing can be triggered by a guardian or family member who suspects manipulation or coercion behind the marriage. Courts adjudicating the denial of such fundamental rights as the right to marry or procreate will use a heightened level of scrutiny to evaluate whether the retarded individual is being unfairly denied his or her constitutional rights. 
The Supreme Court also opened up a can worms with this decision on marriage . There is now what is called a legal slippery slope . With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”  Gay marriage is now a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? (2)>> Legalized polygamy? Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.  Polyamory is another term, one broader and more inclusive of a marriage with any number of people so related, male, female.

Time to get rid of Marriage Licences .
Why we need a marriage "license" and what does that license do for us, that we couldn't already do without it? I don't know the answers. Does anyone know the benefit if any of having the license? , the license came about 150 years ago when it was then unheard of whites marrying blacks, thus a marriage "license" came about to allow this to happen. It simply became normal for all marriages to require licenses after a while, I guess for payola money to the states? So what benefits do we get from having the license? Because now I'm thinking about getting a divorce :)just so the government doesn't have control over me or my children. Marriage Licences have a "racist" origin The word license is derived from the Latin word Licentious, which means lacking restraint, ignoring societal standards, disregard for accepted rules. According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word license is defined as - the permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." Now in other words, this means the government makes something that was lawful to do, illegal, so they can then tell you that if you pay the government money (which is a bribe), then they will turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to break the law that they just said was illegal to do! So the question that people need to ask themselves, is why would it be illegal to marry without the State's permission? This question is rarely brought up or addressed because people have grown so custom, to following the laws and statutes and commandments of man, rather than those of the Most High. Let's examine the history of marriage license in America, and see how it came about, why it came about, and why the government and states enforce this system of enslavement upon the people. Miscegenation laws, were laws that banned interracial marriage and sometimes interracial sex between whites and blacks. In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have since 1863 been termed as "miscegenation. In North America, laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed and were enforced in the Thirteen Colonies from the late seventeenth century onward, and subsequently in several US states and US territories until 1967. In the United States, miscegenation laws were state laws passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage and interracial sex. Typically defining miscegenation as a felony, yes, felony, and these laws prohibited the solemnization of weddings between persons of different races and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies.When a couple applies for a license from the State to marry, they are actually asking for permission to engage in the “unlawful” activity of marriage (License - a revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful - Black’s Law 7th ed). Why, because the State can regulate that which it licenses, by entering into a State-sanctioned franchise (marriage) as a married couple, a couple forfeits their rights to a private, sovereign marriage and any ownership control of their children or property; as a result of the marriage license. Child Protective Services receives its full power and authority to seize children via the marriage license under the ancient legal doctrine of parens patriae. When a State-licensed married couple has a child, the Birth Certificate is the document the State uses to claim ownership of the child under its marriage contract. State ownership remains as long as that child lives, even after the age of 21. If you have a birth certificate, the State owns you too. Couples married under a state-sanctioned marriage license also give up 1/3 of their property to the state. Should one person die, the government, through the inheritance tax, will demand the surviving party to “buy them out” - usually a 28- 35% tax.You ought to obey the Most High rather than the government! So when it comes to marriages in the United States of America, it is commanded by the government that those intending upon marrying, must have a marriage license, so if you following and believe in the Most High, then you must not yield yourself servants toward the government's unrighteousness.

The curse of marriage

That we can call these delicate creatures ours
And not their appetites!
(Othello 3.3.272-3)

*** I believe that traditional marriage ( although falling apart in America) should never be defined constitutionally , or legislated . It takes a man and woman to fall in love and produce a child .  That's how simple , and how Nature set up the biological process . There is no escaping it . Yes, I do believe that men and women can create "life" . Two of the same sex can't , unless two women get inseminated by artificial means . It's still out of the biological process .  Even in Darwinian terms , homosexuality  is a dead end evolutionary . (1)>> In 2013, in United States v Windsor, the Court invalidated a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on the grounds that it violated the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  In a 5 to 4 decision by Justice Kennedy, the Court said "careful consideration" had to be given to "discrimination's of unusual character."  That, coupled with the deference that the federal government owes states with respect to how they define marriage, led to striking down the federal law that did not recognize same-sex marriage for federal purposes (e.g, joint filing of a tax return) even when a couple was lawfully married under state law. Justice Scalia, in dissent, crititicized the Court for intervening in a matter that should have been left to elected representatives and the people to decide: "The Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the the losers the peace that comes from a fair defeat.'(2)>> Considering that polygamy is usually associated with deep rooted religious beliefs, and the the liberals tweeting #LoveIsLove usually hate people who hold deep rooted religious beliefs, this will be interesting. Politico has a long-form think-piece making the case for polygamy. Here’s an excerpt: Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right…

No comments:

Post a Comment