The United States Supreme Court has, on to of its refusal of ruling according to the Constitution or to any sound and rational jurisprudence on the illegality and incompetently put together law on the Healthcare Mandate upon the American People,
http://www.brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2015/06/justice-roberts-subverts-law-yet-again.html
has once again repeated its open invitation to be dissolved as an incompetent and corrupt political body in its decision regarding
OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015.
That decision is found at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.
Really? The 14th Amendment?
The 14th Amendment reads as:
As idiots, instead of arguing the emboldened "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", Kennedy and his team of miscreants of the Constitution who with the rest of the Court habitually commit misprision of TREASON argue over "due process" as if "liberty", the freedom to not be imprisoned nor bound nor restrained nor oppressed / persecuted nor obligated (in the context used in the 14th Amendment) now means something newly created and applied on the definition of "liberty" not foreseen by those who wrote and argued over and then ratified this 14th Amendment into Law in the 1860s.
In 1778, Thomas Jefferson tried to amend Sodomy from being a death penalty offense during the generation of those who would pen the Bill of Rights, submitting in place of the DEATH PENALTY a failed law of castration for men who engage in sodomy
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html
Whereas it frequently happens that wicked and dissolute men resigning themselves to the dominion of inordinate passions, commit violations on the lives, liberties and property of others, and, the secure enjoyment of these having principally induced men to enter into society, government would be defective in it's principal purpose were it not to restrain such criminal acts, by inflicting due punishments on those who perpetrate them...
Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.
Until 2005, Virginia held their anti-Sodomy Statute: 18.2-361, was to be correctly listed as "Crimes Against Nature."
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/virginia/virginia.htm
Statute: 18.2-361, Crimes Against Nature. Unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas. Virginia continues to arrest and prosecute under this law.
Penalty: 5 years
Classification: Felony
Restrictions: None
Adultery, and co-habitation are also illegal and enforced sporadically and maliciously. Fornication was ruled unconstitutional in 2005 by the Virginia Supreme Court based on the Lawrence decision.
Statute
§ 18.2-361 Crimes against nature
A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.
B. Any person who carnally knows by the anus or by or with the mouth his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least thirteen but less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.
History
The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers
1625 Richard Cornish is hanged for sodomy with another man in Virginia. This is the first known death sentence for sodomy in the American colonies, although it is unclear if there was legal authority for the sentence.
1777 A committee works on a revised set of criminal law for Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and other liberals attempt to have the death penalty for sodomy replaced by castration for men and boring a hole through the nose of a woman. The committee rejects their suggestion and retains the death penalty.
1812 The Virginia Supreme Court is the first in the nation to decide that emission of semen is not necessary to complete an act of sodomy. This rejects English law on the subject and almost all U.S. courts later follow Virginia’s lead.
1916 The Virginia legislature expands the state’s sodomy law to cover oral sex and makes the oral sex provision applicable only to people of the same sex. After the Virginia Supreme Court follows the law and reverses a heterosexual sodomy conviction, the legislature broadens the law to cover opposite-sex sodomy as well.
Legal
Doe v. Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Richmond, 403 F. Supp. 1199 (E.D. Va. 1975), the case which upheld Virginia’s sodomy law and which was summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court
Elvis Gene DePriest, et al. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 2000 Upholds the Virginia sodomy law as constitutional. Significantly, it found that the specific cases of individuals charged with solicitation to commit sodomy had not established a presumption of privacy by seeking to commit sodomy in a public park. Their complaints were not allowed to be extended question the constitutionality of the sodomy law as applied to acts engaged in private.
The Virginia Statute information then speaks as to private acts of Sodomy being ruled as allowed by the Court's decision of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, but the PUBLIC acts of Sodomy and private acts of child rape and engaging in bestiality may remain on the books. If a homosexuals may not sodomize their now to be condoned new marriage partners in public, will the homosexuals next argue that as the tradition of what constitutes marriage must come to an end, as they do in the decision under Kennedy, so to must the laws of public decency as well because THEY have arrived?
In Illinois, the State where Bill Ayers and Barack Obama in front of me and one other witness consented public with the proposition of Bill Ayers of Obama as payment and black-mail allowance for Ayers to mentor Obama for at least 5 days, so a presumption that when Obama was seen publicly being mentored all during the week after that they had engaged in consensual sodomy with one another in 1981, Illinois (home to the Communists and Communist-Socialist central committees) had repealed the Laws against Sodomy in 1962.
Gradually from 1971 to 2003, when Lawrence v. Texas asserted itself on to the remaining states a forced repeal claim, Sodomy laws were gradually being repealed in many states by state choice or state sovereignty rights to repeal or not repeal those laws on the books since they even came into existence as a State.
Justice Kennedy writes on page 4 of his decision:
It is fair and necessary to say these references
were based on the understanding that marriage is a union
between two persons of the opposite sex.
That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents
say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view
long has been held—and continues to be held—in good
faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout
the world.
The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend
that these cases cannot end there.
In effect, there is an admission by Justice Kennedy that the allowing of homosexuals to marry is aimed at destroying the Institution of Marriage as being between a man and a woman, bastardizing those who do so, and redefining evil as good, and good as evil.
Justice Kennedy then blames the granting of women any form of equal station in society with men as the origin of the demise of how we should view marriage.
On Page 6 of his majority decision, Justice Kennedy writes:
Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married
man and woman were treated by the State as a single,
male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 430 (1765). As women
gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society
began to understand that women have their own equal
dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned.
On Page 7 of his majority decision, Justice Kennedy then admits:
For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality
was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric
Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was
classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until
1973.
Then on Page 10 of his majority decision, Justice Kennedy writes that:
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The
fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include
most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices
central to individual dignity and autonomy, including
intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.
See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).
In citing Duncan v. Louisiana, Kennedy was claiming first that the Bill of Rights are to be protected by the Court first as liberties, and then as personal choices, both of which are subject to be taken away later by the context of his words in this precedent case. But that is not the case with either Duncan, nor Eisenstadt nor with Griswold. The context of Duncan on pages 146 to 150 show Kennedy to not only be in error, but one has to wonder if his law clerk wrote his decision without either of the two, let alone the 4 other Justices (along with their law clerks), to even bother read what the hell they were citing.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/145/case.html
Page 391 U. S. 146
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, Gary Duncan, was convicted of simple battery in the Twenty-fifth Judicial District Court of Louisiana. Under Louisiana law, simple battery is a misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment and a $300 fine. Appellant sought trial by jury, but, because the Louisiana Constitution grants jury trials only in cases in which capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed, [Footnote 1] the trial judge denied the request. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve 60 days in the parish prison and pay a fine of $10. Appellant sought review in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, asserting that the denial of jury trial violated rights guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, finding "[n]o error of law in the ruling complained of," denied appellant a writ of certiorari. [Footnote 2] Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Page 391 U. S. 147
§ 1257(2) appellant sought review in this Court, alleging that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution secure the right to jury trial in state criminal prosecutions where a sentence as long as two years may be imposed. We noted probable jurisdiction, [Footnote 3] and set the case for oral argument with No. 52, Bloom v. Illinois, post, p. 391 U. S. 194.
Appellant was 19 years of age when tried. While driving on Highway 23 in Plaquemines Parish on October 18, 1966, he saw two younger cousins engaged in a conversation by the side of the road with four white boys. Knowing his cousins, Negroes who had recently transferred to a formerly all-white high school, had reported the occurrence of racial incidents at the school, Duncan stopped the car, got out, and approached the six boys. At trial, the white boys and a white onlooker testified, as did appellant and his cousins. The testimony was in dispute on many points, but the witnesses agreed that appellant and the white boys spoke to each other, that appellant encouraged his cousins to break off the encounter and enter his car, and that appellant was about to enter the car himself for the purpose of driving away with his cousins. The whites testified that, just before getting in the car, appellant slapped Herman Landry, one of the white boys, on the elbow. The Negroes testified that appellant had not slapped Landry, but had merely touched him. The trial judge concluded that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Duncan had committed simple battery, and found him guilty.
I
The Fourteenth Amendment denies the States the power to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In resolving conflicting
Page 391 U. S. 148
claims concerning the meaning of this spacious language, the Court has looked increasingly to the Bill of Rights for guidance; many of the rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution have been held to be protected against state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause now protects the right to compensation for property taken by the State; [Footnote 4] the rights of speech, press, and religion covered by the First Amendment; [Footnote 5] the Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to have excluded from criminal trials any evidence illegally seized; [Footnote 6] the right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to be free of compelled self-incrimination; [Footnote 7] and the Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, [Footnote 8] to a speedy [Footnote 9] and public [Footnote 10] trial, to confrontation of opposing witnesses, [Footnote 11] and to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. [Footnote 12]
The test for determining whether a right extended by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments with respect to federal criminal proceedings is also protected against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment has been phrased in a variety of ways in the opinions of this Court. The question has been asked whether a right is among those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions,'" Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 287 U. S. 67 (1932); [Footnote 13] whether
Page 391 U. S. 149
it is "basic in our system of jurisprudence," In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 333 U. S. 273 (1948), and whether it is "a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial," Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 372 U. S. 343-344 (1963); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 378 U. S. 6 (1964); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 380 U. S. 403 (1965). The claim before us is that the right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment meets these tests. The position of Louisiana, on the other hand, is that the Constitution imposes upon the States no duty to give a jury trial in any criminal case, regardless of the seriousness of the crime or the size of the punishment which may be imposed. Because we believe that trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice, we hold that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases which -- were they to be tried in a federal court -- would come within the Sixth Amendment's guarantee. [Footnote 14] Since we consider the appeal before
Page 391 U. S. 150
us to be such a case, we hold that the Constitution was violated when appellant's demand for jury trial was refused.
In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972) @ 453.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/438/case.html in context, it deals with "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."
Since homosexuals are incapable of bearing children from their same sex mates, the argument is moot. Read the cited section for yourself:
Kennedy also cites Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, (1965) @ 484–486
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/case.html
which reads:
On page 11 of the decision, Kennedy writes:
The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions,
[[[My comments in green ]]]
[To which I say...Bullshit! What freedom in all its dimensions is Kennedy referring to? Is it such as the homosexual's "joy of this new found liberty" of sucking a bloody or menstruating clitoris and getting pubic hairs in her teeth and venereal disease of the mouth, or of homosexuals tonguing shit out of an anus and puking out his or her guts and making a viral mess that smells like a backed up sewer, or of a homosexual man wrapping his mouth around a penis and getting venereal disease passed from the penis to inside their mouth, of the new found liberty to be those contracting AIDS and dying from their bodies rebelling against what they were created and designed for? Kennedy and his fellow majority justices are mentally ill...they are legally crazy in behalf of homosexuality and their anti-GOD and anti-Creation agenda on this subject.
They who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights placed the DEATH PENALTY on such who engaged in these acts, and later they who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had Sodomy Laws retained strictness and expanded upon that the discharge of semen was not necessary to complete the act as sodomy (for the male), merely penetration. So that which was condemned as "wicked and dissolute" by the Founders, that is what sex perverts and the mentally ill now call as homosexual liberty. Those acts which are traditionally and legally abomination from the founding of this Country to the days when the 14th Amendment (which they cite) was made part of the Constitution of the United States, that which was abominable FOR ALL TIME to those who wrote the 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights , the homosexuals demand that these legislators made allowance for homosexual wickedness to be one day grafted in as acceptable and as a new "liberty" for future generations that from the Bill of Rights to the 14th Amendment days they would have easily been lawfully executed for? It is completely idiotic and a promulgation of lies in the hope of having an opposition suffering from legal and historical illiteracy.]
and so they entrusted to future generations a charter
protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we
learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord
between the Constitution’s central protections and a received
legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
Kennedy, after trying to misstate and misapply the Decisions of the Supreme Court Cited above, then admits on the bottom of the same page, an "Oh...by the way."
...It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing
the right to marry presumed a relationship involving
opposite-sex partners.
No kidding. No duh. Oh, we used cases totally irrelevant and twisted them out of legal context and manufactured intent that was never there to justify our evil affirmations to legitimize wickedness and destroy the sacred institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman, we don't deny that, but see it our way anyway?
NO THANKS and NO WAY!!!
That aside, I move on to the dissent by Justice Roberts, who floors those of us who read his rewriting Legislation opinions regarding the unConstitutional Healthcare.
On page 2 of his dissent, Justice Roberts (joined by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas in the dissent) writes:
But this Court is not a legislature.
That is an immediate double take with a WTF profanity attached to it. Roberts lost credibility in persuading the 5 majority justices because to them, Roberts taks a "do as I say" in not legislating from the bench, "not as I do" approach. That legislating from the bench approach regarding Healthcare likely factors in at least one vote, while stacking illegal justices to serve Kagan and Sotomayor by an illegal to be in place Obama Administration run by a man who isn't even a Constitutional United States Natural Born Citizen also puts this vote for EVIL over.
Roberts continues,
Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what
the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified
the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No.
78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization
altered).
...The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s
decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has
persisted in every culture throughout human history can
hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does
not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a
State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex
couples, or to retain the historic definition.
...Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.
Chief Justice Roberts continues on page 3 of his dissent:
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.
The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution
or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly
disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of
humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society
according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of
injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates
the marriage laws of more than half the States and
orders the transformation of a social institution that has
formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the
Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians
and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences
with the requirements of the law. But as this Court
has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution
“is made for people of fundamentally differing views.”
Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J.,
dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with
the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,
dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained
conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question
the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when
the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question.
And it answers that question based not on neutral
principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not
about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples.
It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives,
or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law.
The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
Page 4 (dissent)
I
Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the
“right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.”
There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the
Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States
to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in
these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—more
precisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”?
The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating
ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or
two. Even if history and precedent are not “the end” of
these cases, ante, at 4, I would not “sweep away what has
so long been settled” without showing greater respect for
all that preceded us. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572
U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 8).
A
As the majority acknowledges, marriage “has existed for
millennia and across civilizations.” Ante, at 3. For all
those millennia, across all those civilizations, “marriage”
referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a
woman. See ante, at 4; Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1,
p. 12 (petitioners conceding that they are not aware of any
society that permitted same-sex marriage before 2001). As
the Court explained two Terms ago, “until recent years,
. . . marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had
been thought of by most people as essential to the very
definition of that term and to its role and function
throughout the history of civilization.” United States v.
Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 13).
This universal definition of marriage as the union of a
man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage
did not come about as a result of a political movement,
discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other
moving force of world history—and certainly not as a
result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbi-
Page 5 (dissent)
ans. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need:
ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and
father committed to raising them in the stable conditions
of a lifelong relationship. See G. Quale, A History of
Marriage Systems 2 (1988); cf. M. Cicero, De Officiis 57
(W. Miller transl. 1913) (“For since the reproductive instinct
is by nature’s gift the common possession of all
living creatures, the first bond of union is that between
husband and wife; the next, that between parents and
children; then we find one home, with everything in
common.”).
The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so
fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The
human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs
through sexual relations between a man and a woman.
When sexual relations result in the conception of a child,
that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother
and father stay together rather than going their separate
ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society,
sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur
only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting
bond.
Society has recognized that bond as marriage. And by
bestowing a respected status and material benefits on
married couples, society encourages men and women to
conduct sexual relations within marriage rather than
without. As one prominent scholar put it, “Marriage is a
socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people
to stay together and care for children that the mere desire
for children, and the sex that makes children possible,
does not solve.” J. Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem 41
(2002).
This singular understanding of marriage has prevailed
in the United States throughout our history. The majority
accepts that at “the time of the Nation’s founding [marriage]
was understood to be a voluntary contract between
Page 6 (dissent)
a man and a woman.” Ante, at 6. Early Americans drew
heavily on legal scholars like William Blackstone, who
regarded marriage between “husband and wife” as one of
the “great relations in private life,” and philosophers like
John Locke, who described marriage as “a voluntary compact
between man and woman” centered on “its chief end,
procreation” and the “nourishment and support” of children.
1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *410; J. Locke,
Second Treatise of Civil Government §§78–79, p. 39 (J.
Gough ed. 1947). To those who drafted and ratified the
Constitution, this conception of marriage and family “was
a given: its structure, its stability, roles, and values accepted
by all.” Forte, The Framers’ Idea of Marriage and
Family, in The Meaning of Marriage 100, 102 (R. George
& J. Elshtain eds. 2006).
The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage,
and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he
whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and
wife.” Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17) (quoting
In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594 (1890)). There is no
dispute that every State at the founding—and every State
throughout our history until a dozen years ago—defined
marriage in the traditional, biologically rooted way. The
four States in these cases are typical. Their laws, before
and after statehood, have treated marriage as the union of
a man and a woman. See DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F. 3d 388,
396–399 (CA6 2014). Even when state laws did not specify
this definition expressly, no one doubted what they
meant. See Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S. W. 2d 588, 589 (Ky.
App. 1973). The meaning of “marriage” went without
saying.
Of course, many did say it. In his first American dictionary,
Noah Webster defined marriage as “the legal
union of a man and woman for life,” which served the
purposes of “preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the
sexes, . . . promoting domestic felicity, and . . . securing the
Page 7 (dissent)
maintenance and education of children.” 1 An American
Dictionary of the English Language (1828). An influential
19th-century treatise defined marriage as “a civil status,
existing in one man and one woman legally united for life
for those civil and social purposes which are based in the
distinction of sex.” J. Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of
Marriage and Divorce 25 (1852). The first edition of
Black’s Law Dictionary defined marriage as “the civil
status of one man and one woman united in law for life.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 756 (1891) (emphasis deleted).
The dictionary maintained essentially that same definition
for the next century.
This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described
marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional
meaning.
Page 10 (dissent)
...as a judge, I find the majority’s position
indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.
Page 16 (dissent)
Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a
Page 17 (dissent)
single case or other legal source providing any basis for such a constitutional right. None exists, and that is enough to foreclose their claim.
Page 27 (dissent)
Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to
creating rights. They have constitutional power only to
resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have
the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties
not before the court or to anticipate problems that may
arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision,
for example, creates serious questions about religious
liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex
marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise
religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—
actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.
On Page 29, Chief Justice Roberts concludes his dissent with these words:
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever
sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage,
by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate
the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity
for a new expression of commitment to a partner.
Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not
celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
I respectfully dissent.
----------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality: A Tragic Mistake / Error / A Straying Away From the Divine Path
by Brianroy
http://www.brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2015/06/justice-roberts-subverts-law-yet-again.html
has once again repeated its open invitation to be dissolved as an incompetent and corrupt political body in its decision regarding
OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015.
That decision is found at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.
Really? The 14th Amendment?
The 14th Amendment reads as:
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
As idiots, instead of arguing the emboldened "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", Kennedy and his team of miscreants of the Constitution who with the rest of the Court habitually commit misprision of TREASON argue over "due process" as if "liberty", the freedom to not be imprisoned nor bound nor restrained nor oppressed / persecuted nor obligated (in the context used in the 14th Amendment) now means something newly created and applied on the definition of "liberty" not foreseen by those who wrote and argued over and then ratified this 14th Amendment into Law in the 1860s.
In 1778, Thomas Jefferson tried to amend Sodomy from being a death penalty offense during the generation of those who would pen the Bill of Rights, submitting in place of the DEATH PENALTY a failed law of castration for men who engage in sodomy
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html
Whereas it frequently happens that wicked and dissolute men resigning themselves to the dominion of inordinate passions, commit violations on the lives, liberties and property of others, and, the secure enjoyment of these having principally induced men to enter into society, government would be defective in it's principal purpose were it not to restrain such criminal acts, by inflicting due punishments on those who perpetrate them...
Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.
Until 2005, Virginia held their anti-Sodomy Statute: 18.2-361, was to be correctly listed as "Crimes Against Nature."
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/virginia/virginia.htm
Statute: 18.2-361, Crimes Against Nature. Unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas. Virginia continues to arrest and prosecute under this law.
Penalty: 5 years
Classification: Felony
Restrictions: None
Adultery, and co-habitation are also illegal and enforced sporadically and maliciously. Fornication was ruled unconstitutional in 2005 by the Virginia Supreme Court based on the Lawrence decision.
Statute
§ 18.2-361 Crimes against nature
A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.
B. Any person who carnally knows by the anus or by or with the mouth his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least thirteen but less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.
History
The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers
1625 Richard Cornish is hanged for sodomy with another man in Virginia. This is the first known death sentence for sodomy in the American colonies, although it is unclear if there was legal authority for the sentence.
1777 A committee works on a revised set of criminal law for Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and other liberals attempt to have the death penalty for sodomy replaced by castration for men and boring a hole through the nose of a woman. The committee rejects their suggestion and retains the death penalty.
1812 The Virginia Supreme Court is the first in the nation to decide that emission of semen is not necessary to complete an act of sodomy. This rejects English law on the subject and almost all U.S. courts later follow Virginia’s lead.
1916 The Virginia legislature expands the state’s sodomy law to cover oral sex and makes the oral sex provision applicable only to people of the same sex. After the Virginia Supreme Court follows the law and reverses a heterosexual sodomy conviction, the legislature broadens the law to cover opposite-sex sodomy as well.
Legal
Doe v. Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Richmond, 403 F. Supp. 1199 (E.D. Va. 1975), the case which upheld Virginia’s sodomy law and which was summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court
Elvis Gene DePriest, et al. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 2000 Upholds the Virginia sodomy law as constitutional. Significantly, it found that the specific cases of individuals charged with solicitation to commit sodomy had not established a presumption of privacy by seeking to commit sodomy in a public park. Their complaints were not allowed to be extended question the constitutionality of the sodomy law as applied to acts engaged in private.
The Virginia Statute information then speaks as to private acts of Sodomy being ruled as allowed by the Court's decision of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, but the PUBLIC acts of Sodomy and private acts of child rape and engaging in bestiality may remain on the books. If a homosexuals may not sodomize their now to be condoned new marriage partners in public, will the homosexuals next argue that as the tradition of what constitutes marriage must come to an end, as they do in the decision under Kennedy, so to must the laws of public decency as well because THEY have arrived?
In Illinois, the State where Bill Ayers and Barack Obama in front of me and one other witness consented public with the proposition of Bill Ayers of Obama as payment and black-mail allowance for Ayers to mentor Obama for at least 5 days, so a presumption that when Obama was seen publicly being mentored all during the week after that they had engaged in consensual sodomy with one another in 1981, Illinois (home to the Communists and Communist-Socialist central committees) had repealed the Laws against Sodomy in 1962.
Gradually from 1971 to 2003, when Lawrence v. Texas asserted itself on to the remaining states a forced repeal claim, Sodomy laws were gradually being repealed in many states by state choice or state sovereignty rights to repeal or not repeal those laws on the books since they even came into existence as a State.
Justice Kennedy writes on page 4 of his decision:
It is fair and necessary to say these references
were based on the understanding that marriage is a union
between two persons of the opposite sex.
That history is the beginning of these cases. The respondents
say it should be the end as well. To them, it would demean a timeless institution if the concept and lawful status of marriage were extended to two persons of the same sex. Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view
long has been held—and continues to be held—in good
faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout
the world.
The petitioners acknowledge this history but contend
that these cases cannot end there.
In effect, there is an admission by Justice Kennedy that the allowing of homosexuals to marry is aimed at destroying the Institution of Marriage as being between a man and a woman, bastardizing those who do so, and redefining evil as good, and good as evil.
Justice Kennedy then blames the granting of women any form of equal station in society with men as the origin of the demise of how we should view marriage.
On Page 6 of his majority decision, Justice Kennedy writes:
Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married
man and woman were treated by the State as a single,
male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 430 (1765). As women
gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society
began to understand that women have their own equal
dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned.
On Page 7 of his majority decision, Justice Kennedy then admits:
For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality
was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric
Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was
classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until
1973.
Then on Page 10 of his majority decision, Justice Kennedy writes that:
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The
fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include
most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices
central to individual dignity and autonomy, including
intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.
See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).
In citing Duncan v. Louisiana, Kennedy was claiming first that the Bill of Rights are to be protected by the Court first as liberties, and then as personal choices, both of which are subject to be taken away later by the context of his words in this precedent case. But that is not the case with either Duncan, nor Eisenstadt nor with Griswold. The context of Duncan on pages 146 to 150 show Kennedy to not only be in error, but one has to wonder if his law clerk wrote his decision without either of the two, let alone the 4 other Justices (along with their law clerks), to even bother read what the hell they were citing.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/145/case.html
Page 391 U. S. 146
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, Gary Duncan, was convicted of simple battery in the Twenty-fifth Judicial District Court of Louisiana. Under Louisiana law, simple battery is a misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment and a $300 fine. Appellant sought trial by jury, but, because the Louisiana Constitution grants jury trials only in cases in which capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed, [Footnote 1] the trial judge denied the request. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve 60 days in the parish prison and pay a fine of $10. Appellant sought review in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, asserting that the denial of jury trial violated rights guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, finding "[n]o error of law in the ruling complained of," denied appellant a writ of certiorari. [Footnote 2] Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Page 391 U. S. 147
§ 1257(2) appellant sought review in this Court, alleging that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution secure the right to jury trial in state criminal prosecutions where a sentence as long as two years may be imposed. We noted probable jurisdiction, [Footnote 3] and set the case for oral argument with No. 52, Bloom v. Illinois, post, p. 391 U. S. 194.
Appellant was 19 years of age when tried. While driving on Highway 23 in Plaquemines Parish on October 18, 1966, he saw two younger cousins engaged in a conversation by the side of the road with four white boys. Knowing his cousins, Negroes who had recently transferred to a formerly all-white high school, had reported the occurrence of racial incidents at the school, Duncan stopped the car, got out, and approached the six boys. At trial, the white boys and a white onlooker testified, as did appellant and his cousins. The testimony was in dispute on many points, but the witnesses agreed that appellant and the white boys spoke to each other, that appellant encouraged his cousins to break off the encounter and enter his car, and that appellant was about to enter the car himself for the purpose of driving away with his cousins. The whites testified that, just before getting in the car, appellant slapped Herman Landry, one of the white boys, on the elbow. The Negroes testified that appellant had not slapped Landry, but had merely touched him. The trial judge concluded that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Duncan had committed simple battery, and found him guilty.
I
The Fourteenth Amendment denies the States the power to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In resolving conflicting
Page 391 U. S. 148
claims concerning the meaning of this spacious language, the Court has looked increasingly to the Bill of Rights for guidance; many of the rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution have been held to be protected against state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause now protects the right to compensation for property taken by the State; [Footnote 4] the rights of speech, press, and religion covered by the First Amendment; [Footnote 5] the Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and to have excluded from criminal trials any evidence illegally seized; [Footnote 6] the right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to be free of compelled self-incrimination; [Footnote 7] and the Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, [Footnote 8] to a speedy [Footnote 9] and public [Footnote 10] trial, to confrontation of opposing witnesses, [Footnote 11] and to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. [Footnote 12]
The test for determining whether a right extended by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments with respect to federal criminal proceedings is also protected against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment has been phrased in a variety of ways in the opinions of this Court. The question has been asked whether a right is among those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions,'" Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 287 U. S. 67 (1932); [Footnote 13] whether
Page 391 U. S. 149
it is "basic in our system of jurisprudence," In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 333 U. S. 273 (1948), and whether it is "a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial," Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 372 U. S. 343-344 (1963); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 378 U. S. 6 (1964); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 380 U. S. 403 (1965). The claim before us is that the right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment meets these tests. The position of Louisiana, on the other hand, is that the Constitution imposes upon the States no duty to give a jury trial in any criminal case, regardless of the seriousness of the crime or the size of the punishment which may be imposed. Because we believe that trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice, we hold that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases which -- were they to be tried in a federal court -- would come within the Sixth Amendment's guarantee. [Footnote 14] Since we consider the appeal before
Page 391 U. S. 150
us to be such a case, we hold that the Constitution was violated when appellant's demand for jury trial was refused.
In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972) @ 453.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/438/case.html in context, it deals with "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."
Since homosexuals are incapable of bearing children from their same sex mates, the argument is moot. Read the cited section for yourself:
429 F.2d at 1401-1402. The Court of Appeals went on to hold, id. at 1402:
"To say that contraceptives are immoral as such, and are to be forbidden to unmarried persons who will nevertheless persist in having intercourse, means that such persons must risk for themselves an unwanted pregnancy, for the child, illegitimacy, and,
for society, a possible obligation of support. Such a view of morality is not only the very mirror image of sensible legislation; we consider that it conflicts with fundamental human rights. In the absence of demonstrated harm, we hold it is beyond the competency of the state."
We need not, and do not, however, decide that important question in this case, because, whatever the rights of the individual to access to contraceptives may be, the rights must be the same for the unmarried and the married alike.
If, under Griswold, the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be prohibited, a ban on distribution to unmarried persons would be equally impermissible. It is true that, in Griswold, the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity, with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals, each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. See Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969). [Footnote 10] See also Skinner v. Oklahoma,
316 U. S. 535 (1942); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 197 U. S. 29 (1905).
Kennedy also cites Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, (1965) @ 484–486
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/case.html
which reads:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment
[freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press]
is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." * We recently referred
in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 367 U. S. 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully an particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup.Ct.Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw.U.L.Rev. 216 (1960).
We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." See, e.g., Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622,341 U. S. 626, 341 U. S. 644; Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167; Lanza v. New York,370 U. S. 139; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U. S. 360; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541. These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.
The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a
"governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms."
NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U. S. 288, 377 U. S. 307. Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The
very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage
[and by marriage, it is an absolute certainty the Court meant marriage as ONLY being possible between a man and a woman]
is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Reversed.
* The Court said in full about this right of privacy:
"The principles laid down in this opinion [by Lord Camden in Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029] affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offence -- it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden's judgment. Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods is within the condemnation of that judgment. In this regard, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments run almost into each other."
116 U.S. at 116 U. S. 630.
MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring.
I agree with the Court that Connecticut's birth control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, and I join in its opinion and judgment. Although I have not accepted the view that "due process," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, incorporates all of the first eight Amendments (see my concurring opinion in Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 380 U. S. 410, and the dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN in Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U. S. 117, 366 U. S. 154), I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted, and that it embraces the right of marital privacy, though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, [Footnote 1] is supported both by numerous
On page 11 of the decision, Kennedy writes:
The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions,
[[[My comments in green ]]]
[To which I say...Bullshit! What freedom in all its dimensions is Kennedy referring to? Is it such as the homosexual's "joy of this new found liberty" of sucking a bloody or menstruating clitoris and getting pubic hairs in her teeth and venereal disease of the mouth, or of homosexuals tonguing shit out of an anus and puking out his or her guts and making a viral mess that smells like a backed up sewer, or of a homosexual man wrapping his mouth around a penis and getting venereal disease passed from the penis to inside their mouth, of the new found liberty to be those contracting AIDS and dying from their bodies rebelling against what they were created and designed for? Kennedy and his fellow majority justices are mentally ill...they are legally crazy in behalf of homosexuality and their anti-GOD and anti-Creation agenda on this subject.
They who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights placed the DEATH PENALTY on such who engaged in these acts, and later they who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had Sodomy Laws retained strictness and expanded upon that the discharge of semen was not necessary to complete the act as sodomy (for the male), merely penetration. So that which was condemned as "wicked and dissolute" by the Founders, that is what sex perverts and the mentally ill now call as homosexual liberty. Those acts which are traditionally and legally abomination from the founding of this Country to the days when the 14th Amendment (which they cite) was made part of the Constitution of the United States, that which was abominable FOR ALL TIME to those who wrote the 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights , the homosexuals demand that these legislators made allowance for homosexual wickedness to be one day grafted in as acceptable and as a new "liberty" for future generations that from the Bill of Rights to the 14th Amendment days they would have easily been lawfully executed for? It is completely idiotic and a promulgation of lies in the hope of having an opposition suffering from legal and historical illiteracy.]
and so they entrusted to future generations a charter
protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we
learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord
between the Constitution’s central protections and a received
legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
Kennedy, after trying to misstate and misapply the Decisions of the Supreme Court Cited above, then admits on the bottom of the same page, an "Oh...by the way."
...It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing
the right to marry presumed a relationship involving
opposite-sex partners.
No kidding. No duh. Oh, we used cases totally irrelevant and twisted them out of legal context and manufactured intent that was never there to justify our evil affirmations to legitimize wickedness and destroy the sacred institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman, we don't deny that, but see it our way anyway?
NO THANKS and NO WAY!!!
That aside, I move on to the dissent by Justice Roberts, who floors those of us who read his rewriting Legislation opinions regarding the unConstitutional Healthcare.
On page 2 of his dissent, Justice Roberts (joined by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas in the dissent) writes:
But this Court is not a legislature.
That is an immediate double take with a WTF profanity attached to it. Roberts lost credibility in persuading the 5 majority justices because to them, Roberts taks a "do as I say" in not legislating from the bench, "not as I do" approach. That legislating from the bench approach regarding Healthcare likely factors in at least one vote, while stacking illegal justices to serve Kagan and Sotomayor by an illegal to be in place Obama Administration run by a man who isn't even a Constitutional United States Natural Born Citizen also puts this vote for EVIL over.
Roberts continues,
Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what
the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified
the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No.
78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization
altered).
...The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s
decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has
persisted in every culture throughout human history can
hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does
not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a
State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex
couples, or to retain the historic definition.
...Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.
Chief Justice Roberts continues on page 3 of his dissent:
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.
The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution
or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly
disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of
humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society
according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of
injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates
the marriage laws of more than half the States and
orders the transformation of a social institution that has
formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the
Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians
and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences
with the requirements of the law. But as this Court
has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution
“is made for people of fundamentally differing views.”
Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J.,
dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with
the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,
dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained
conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question
the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when
the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question.
And it answers that question based not on neutral
principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not
about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples.
It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives,
or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law.
The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
Page 4 (dissent)
I
Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the
“right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.”
There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the
Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States
to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in
these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—more
precisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”?
The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating
ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or
two. Even if history and precedent are not “the end” of
these cases, ante, at 4, I would not “sweep away what has
so long been settled” without showing greater respect for
all that preceded us. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572
U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 8).
A
As the majority acknowledges, marriage “has existed for
millennia and across civilizations.” Ante, at 3. For all
those millennia, across all those civilizations, “marriage”
referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a
woman. See ante, at 4; Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1,
p. 12 (petitioners conceding that they are not aware of any
society that permitted same-sex marriage before 2001). As
the Court explained two Terms ago, “until recent years,
. . . marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had
been thought of by most people as essential to the very
definition of that term and to its role and function
throughout the history of civilization.” United States v.
Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 13).
This universal definition of marriage as the union of a
man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage
did not come about as a result of a political movement,
discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other
moving force of world history—and certainly not as a
result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbi-
Page 5 (dissent)
ans. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need:
ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and
father committed to raising them in the stable conditions
of a lifelong relationship. See G. Quale, A History of
Marriage Systems 2 (1988); cf. M. Cicero, De Officiis 57
(W. Miller transl. 1913) (“For since the reproductive instinct
is by nature’s gift the common possession of all
living creatures, the first bond of union is that between
husband and wife; the next, that between parents and
children; then we find one home, with everything in
common.”).
The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so
fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The
human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs
through sexual relations between a man and a woman.
When sexual relations result in the conception of a child,
that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother
and father stay together rather than going their separate
ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society,
sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur
only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting
bond.
Society has recognized that bond as marriage. And by
bestowing a respected status and material benefits on
married couples, society encourages men and women to
conduct sexual relations within marriage rather than
without. As one prominent scholar put it, “Marriage is a
socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people
to stay together and care for children that the mere desire
for children, and the sex that makes children possible,
does not solve.” J. Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem 41
(2002).
This singular understanding of marriage has prevailed
in the United States throughout our history. The majority
accepts that at “the time of the Nation’s founding [marriage]
was understood to be a voluntary contract between
Page 6 (dissent)
a man and a woman.” Ante, at 6. Early Americans drew
heavily on legal scholars like William Blackstone, who
regarded marriage between “husband and wife” as one of
the “great relations in private life,” and philosophers like
John Locke, who described marriage as “a voluntary compact
between man and woman” centered on “its chief end,
procreation” and the “nourishment and support” of children.
1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *410; J. Locke,
Second Treatise of Civil Government §§78–79, p. 39 (J.
Gough ed. 1947). To those who drafted and ratified the
Constitution, this conception of marriage and family “was
a given: its structure, its stability, roles, and values accepted
by all.” Forte, The Framers’ Idea of Marriage and
Family, in The Meaning of Marriage 100, 102 (R. George
& J. Elshtain eds. 2006).
The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage,
and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he
whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and
wife.” Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17) (quoting
In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594 (1890)). There is no
dispute that every State at the founding—and every State
throughout our history until a dozen years ago—defined
marriage in the traditional, biologically rooted way. The
four States in these cases are typical. Their laws, before
and after statehood, have treated marriage as the union of
a man and a woman. See DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F. 3d 388,
396–399 (CA6 2014). Even when state laws did not specify
this definition expressly, no one doubted what they
meant. See Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S. W. 2d 588, 589 (Ky.
App. 1973). The meaning of “marriage” went without
saying.
Of course, many did say it. In his first American dictionary,
Noah Webster defined marriage as “the legal
union of a man and woman for life,” which served the
purposes of “preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the
sexes, . . . promoting domestic felicity, and . . . securing the
Page 7 (dissent)
maintenance and education of children.” 1 An American
Dictionary of the English Language (1828). An influential
19th-century treatise defined marriage as “a civil status,
existing in one man and one woman legally united for life
for those civil and social purposes which are based in the
distinction of sex.” J. Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of
Marriage and Divorce 25 (1852). The first edition of
Black’s Law Dictionary defined marriage as “the civil
status of one man and one woman united in law for life.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 756 (1891) (emphasis deleted).
The dictionary maintained essentially that same definition
for the next century.
This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described
marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional
meaning.
Page 10 (dissent)
...as a judge, I find the majority’s position
indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.
Page 16 (dissent)
Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a
Page 17 (dissent)
single case or other legal source providing any basis for such a constitutional right. None exists, and that is enough to foreclose their claim.
Page 27 (dissent)
Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to
creating rights. They have constitutional power only to
resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have
the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties
not before the court or to anticipate problems that may
arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision,
for example, creates serious questions about religious
liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex
marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise
religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—
actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.
On Page 29, Chief Justice Roberts concludes his dissent with these words:
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever
sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage,
by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate
the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity
for a new expression of commitment to a partner.
Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not
celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
I respectfully dissent.
----------------------------------------------------
Homosexuality: A Tragic Mistake / Error / A Straying Away From the Divine Path
by Brianroy
The Bible is VERY clear and explicit: Homosexuality is an abomination, a great perversity of how GOD has designed human sexuality. For it says,
“And with a male, you shall not lie, as one lies with a woman,
it (is) TOEBA / ABOMINATION.”
– Leviticus 19:22
"There shall be no harlot
[one who has sexual relations outside the marriage relationship]
among Israel's daughters,
nor shall there be a homosexual among the sons of Israel."
-- Deuteronomy 23:17
Homosexuality among the people of Israel was a death penalty offense. By adhering to anti-homosexuality laws and ordinances, the Jewish people, unlike any other civilization on Earth, is the only one that can be dispersed for nearly 1900 years and pushed to the 4 corners of the Earth, and return home to their GOD given lands, speaking the same language, having the same religious beliefs and customs as those who were living in the lands 1900 years and 2000 years before their existence in the present generations. Anti-homosexual laws are an act of LOVE for the entire people, NOT HATE. Any homosexual who says anti-homosexuality is about hate, is a liar and a damned to hell lost soul and by natural consequence a
mental case in the first place anyway.
The Babylonian Talmud in the Book of Vows, under the Order of Women, defines TOEBA, the Hebrew word for "abomination":
mental case in the first place anyway.
The Babylonian Talmud in the Book of Vows, under the Order of Women, defines TOEBA, the Hebrew word for "abomination":
“What is TOEBA? Toeh Ata Ba / You are erring in this Way.”
-- Nedarim 51a
The Central Biblical Command in the Torah's 613 negative and Positive Commandments is "You shall walk in the Divine Path". Clearly, if you are erring from the Divine Path, such as in committing abomination, you most certainly are not walking in the Divine Path.
The Hebrew word TOEBA translates as Abomination, and is used 117 times in the Old Testament / the Tanakh. The following and pursuing after of Toeba in Scripture can also be argued to be a form of practicing detestable idolatry. Toeba comes from a three letter root word of ta'a (Tav-Ayin-He) which means a wandering error by a mental, physical, or spiritual drunkenness that finds its motivation in wickedness. In the Pilpel (Tav-Ayin-Ayin) it is translated as deceive, and in the Hithpalpel it is translated as misuse. Therefore, homosexuality is a mental - physical - spiritual error that is as a mental and spiritual illness or insanity that deceives those engaged in the practice and misuse of their bodies and souls.
The 10 Commandments does ipso facto include and condemn homosexuality in generality
In Mark 10:19, it was Peter's testimony to Mark that not committing Adultery, not having conjugal sex with another man’s wife, was the very first commandment Jesus addressed…referring back to what we MUST define as being a sexual ethic of and in the 10 commandments.
Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
Mark 10:19
Mark 10:19
Jesus also took this same sexual ethic to a whole higher level, when he also stated:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5:27-28
Following upon this, I would argue that homosexuality is also effectually covered in the 10 Commandments and forbidden.
When two people marry in a Christian ceremony, as hundreds of millions of unbelievers also know, they are told of the passage in Genesis 2:18,21-24
18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
In effect, by committing the conjugal act of adultery, the adulterer has unknowingly engaged in an act of spiritual homosexuality as well. And it is for this reason that adultery is specifically to be a rejected act, and confirmed as rejected because it also involves coveting and stealing that which belongs to another, violating two more of the 10 Commandments.
"Thou shalt NOT commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14) therefore encompasses both the approved conjugal relationship between male and female and warns that it must not be misapplied to those to whom that sexual ethic is forbidden, male or female, in whatever context outside that which is approved. In other words, that conjugal relationship outside that of a man and a woman joined together in marriage. And because Adam had only one rib removed, and one wife, that example from our first Father and Mother of all humanity is the example and pattern that we should follow...having one spouse (not multiple spouses and marriages of convenience, which in itself, also constitutes adultery if the other marriage partners are still living).
Further, in the 10th Commandment of Exodus 20:17, we see repetitious and overlapping commands that by intent and design include homosexuality as well as adultery and bestiality in its primary intent of "covetousness". Thus, by interpretation we can judge that the sins of adultery is like a slippery slope, which slips into the degradation and lower / baser level of homosexuality. which in itself then slips into the degradation of bestiality. In effect the combination of Adultery and Covetousness both begin and end with misplaced desires against GOD's design of humanity and nature, and leads to certain damnation and rejection by GOD.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house - - addresses envy and covetousness, and denies the concept of forceful wealth redistribution as Marxist Communism demands we do to our neighbors before they of Marxist Communism laughingly or spitefully then do to us.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife -- addresses adultery and masculine spiritual homosexuality a second time, as well as female homosexuality, envy and covetousness.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's manservant -- addresses homosexuality as well as envy and covetousness, and also any act of adultery on the part of the wife with the slave (remember Potiphar's wife desiring sex with Joseph here).
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's -- addresses covetousness primarily, but would include those who would lead such an animal into a mire and get it stuck so they would engage in bestiality.
Therefore, more is covered in the 10 Commandments than is generally taught, because most people are too complacent when it comes to being Biblically literate. And as I have demonstrated...yes, homosexuality is covered in generality as forbidden when we adhere to the 10 Commandments given Moses upon Mount Horeb / Sinai by the LORD.
The Jewish sages correctly state that:
"The whole purpose of the [10] Commandments is to purify and unite humanity."
Tanhuma Shmini 65b
And that includes a call to be purified in a restoration relationship with GOD and to cease from adultery, fornication, greed, thievery, criminal murder, and not bearing false witness as well as ceasing from the error of homosexuality, for those to whom this last sin applies.
In brief, from a Biblical point of view, any political or social acceptance of homosexual practice is wrong; and we need to teach our next generations the correct political correctness in GOD's eyes, rather than the many and diverse base errors of man's wayward version of political correctness or Liberalism which will most assuredly damn their eternal souls to hell once they depart the land of the living.
"The whole purpose of the [10] Commandments is to purify and unite humanity."
Tanhuma Shmini 65b
And that includes a call to be purified in a restoration relationship with GOD and to cease from adultery, fornication, greed, thievery, criminal murder, and not bearing false witness as well as ceasing from the error of homosexuality, for those to whom this last sin applies.
In brief, from a Biblical point of view, any political or social acceptance of homosexual practice is wrong; and we need to teach our next generations the correct political correctness in GOD's eyes, rather than the many and diverse base errors of man's wayward version of political correctness or Liberalism which will most assuredly damn their eternal souls to hell once they depart the land of the living.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:13
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
Matthew 11:6
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
Matthew 18:11-13Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment