Google+ Badge

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Government Denies Same-Sex Marriage For "Procreative" Reasons and Other Lies



The gay marriage ban in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee remains intact. In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban, concluding that voters should decide whether gay marriage should be the law or not overturning rulings in all those states that said the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

An excerpt from the ruling reads:

"A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States. Hesitant, yes; but still a rational basis, some rational basis, must exist for the definition. What is it? 

"Two at a minimum suffice to meet this low bar. One starts from the premise that governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse. Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children.

"May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? That we rarely think about these questions nowadays shows only how far we have come and how relatively stable our society is, not that States have no explanation for creating such rules in the first place.

"Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a need to create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can well appreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them. One way to pursue this objective is to encourage couples to enter lasting relationships through subsidies and other benefits and to discourage them from ending such relationships through these and other means.


"People may not need the government’s encouragement to have sex. And they may not need the government’s encouragement to propagate the species. But they may well need the government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish. It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative. And governments typically are not second-guessed under the Constitution for prioritizing how they tackle such issues.  (Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 486–87 1970)

"A dose of humility" should be worded "a regimen of shame." They hypocrisy of the explanation for the ruling is there in boldface print for everyone to judge. The decision is called "rational" when, in truth, a rational basis is defined as "a test of constitutionality of a statute, asking whether the law has a reasonable connection to achieving a legitimate and constitutional objective."

The stated basis of the ruling in achieving a legitimate, constitutional objective is defined only as historical reference: "governments got into the business of defining marriage to regulate sex and male-female intercourse." The ruling has no legitimate basis or no constitutional footing. And, of course, the time-worn unwarranted explanation continues by stating the ludicrous analogy of the primary purpose of present-day marriage to be propagating the species and producing children.

Stupid me, I didn't know that same-sex copulation could produce a child.


I ask you, do you think our government is at all concerned about encouraging different-sex couples to enter into marriages that provide children as "lasting relationships through subsidies and other benefits"? Marriages are granted as a civil right to free, mature, opposite-sex couples in all fifty states. This is not the case for same-sex couples simply because of homophobic fear of two women or two men ... excuse the French ... fucking in some kind of "unnatural, sinful union."

The government does not care about people having mutual, legal sex. And, folks are "doing it" in styles never before imagined. People are, as we speak, fingering, fisting, tribbing, along with anything else two consenting people can imagine.

In truth, we have approved vaginal sex, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, and mutual masturbation -- and accept all may be done outside the sacred vows of marriage.

We have made sex a challenging sport for dating couples and for married couples. We have approved innumerable "hot" and pleasurable condoms; dildos of every persuasion and size; vibrators with a zillion "fun" moving attachments including the "Hello Kitty" and "Solid Gold" models; Ben Wa balls; Penis rings; exotic stimulation creams; "kinky" accessories such as leather whips, handcuffs, and metal chains; penis exenders; hyper-realistic sex dolls including expensive robotic models; spandex full-body binding sacks; artificial, lifelike vaginas; and 360 degree spinning sex swings to name just a few.

Maybe Tina Turner should record a new song for promiscuous lovers titled "What's Sex in Marriage Got to Do With It?" 

The coup de grâce of the ruling is the notion that people "may well need the government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish." What in the holy Hades does the government do now to "stabilize" marriages? It doesn't do very well with protecting children, the product of copulation.

I completely understand the role of religion in providing this necessary assistance to married couples; however, the government in America christens all same-sex unions, yet we have a current divorce rate of 50 percent and sky-high rates of child abuse.

Using the government's own statistics, we find children are suffering from a hidden epidemic of child abuse and neglect. "Every year more than 3 million reports of child abuse are made in the United States involving more than 6 million children (a report can include multiple children). The United States has one of the worst records among industrialized nations – losing on average between four and seven children every day to child abuse and neglect."

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 
and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 
Children’s Bureau. 2013. Child Maltreatment 2012.)

My God, if this is good government policy to care to uphold "nature's laws" for the sake of the children, it seems to me some disconnect about caring unions is continuing to flourish -- the law of so-called "natural marriage" is more like condoning the laws of survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Approximately 70% of child fatalities due to maltreatment are not even recorded as such on death certificates. And, it is estimated that between 50-60% of child fatalities due to maltreatment are not recorded as such on death certificates. 

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children’s Bureau.Child Abuse 
and Neglect Fatalities 2011: Statistics and Interventions)

Here is some Constitution for those who want to express their views on marriage, marriage of any human kind:

There is no mention of "legal" marriage in the Constitution.

Under the Constitution as originally understood, jurisdiction over domestic relations outside federal enclaves and federal territories was reserved to the states. State laws dealing with domestic relations are, however, subject to the mandates of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5.html#sthash.BPtf3nUq.dpuf
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Fourteenth Amendment

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."

If same-sex couples are denied their civil right to marry, they certainly are deprived of liberty and a happy life. In many cases, they are denied of property rights that pertain to being married.

In America, states cannot deny equal protection. This is a Constitutional right.

I believe religious objections to same-sex marriage should not apply to the government in its application of equality. I support the separation of church and state -- not in denying prayer or in denying religious symbols or celebrations, but in denying one religious view to impose its will in public arenas. Granted, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
But, we must remember the point of such an amendment is twofold.

First, it ensures that religious beliefs -- all beliefs whether private or organized -- are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either us what church it whats us to believe or to teach.

Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church.

Gay marriage and religious freedom are separate issues due to separation of church and state.

The various civil rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin.an individual's personal choices are protected by the freedoms to choose personal associates; to express himself or herself; and to preserve personal privacy.

Although many minority groups have made rapid advances toward recognition of their civil rights, one group that continues to struggle is the homosexual community. Similar to ethnic and racial minorities, individuals who identify themselves as homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual have long been subject to disparate treatment from the majority. 

The bottom line for me is that marriage for same-sex couples is an important civil right. It must not be denied but should be governed by the same standards as opposite-sex unions. If you can convince me the government wishes to control and limit opposite-sex rights, with all of their sexual peculiarities, in the name of procreation and the children, have at it. I bet you have to find some interesting new definitions for freedom, liberty, and privacy to prove your points. 

The problems experienced by those in opposition to same-sex marriage rest in their own brains that have been subject to maintaining historical control and to choosing specific moral codes ... just like the judges in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

I know what this boils down to: it is image after image in their mind's eye of humans beings doing what they consider unthinkable and taboo -- folks thinking about people with vaginas loving others with vaginas and people with penises loving others with penises in all the various physical contacts while enjoying the freedom already given freely to different-sex couples. Yeah, kissing, hugging, holding and most of all ... fucking like consenting adults. Sorry to be so realistic, but sometimes the truth demands plain language. It sounds like marriage to me.



   
Have a little fun. Click on this Youtube video "God Hates Gay People": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx_koJwAqLY
Post a Comment