Questions Surrounding Proposition 8's Perry vs. Schwartzenegger

It was announced in the mainstream media that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (don't you just love that court!) has stayed resumption of the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex individuals in California pending the outcome of appeals with respect to the challenge brought over the Constitutionality of Proposition 8, a referendum and initiative passed by the California voters last year (although brought by an organization by the name of "Protect Marriage," which solicits contributions from individuals in order to continue to defend in this action nation-wide, and on whose website very little information is available in just who and what "Protect Marriage" is).

Except that it does include an "educational" component to their organization, which would lead this writer to believe that it also then just may be getting federal grant monies for its existence in addition to those solicited donations.

What truly has been interesting is the legal shenanigans going on in this case, which was filed apparently as "Perry v. Schwarzenegger," and not "Perry vs. the State of California" since it was, after all, a state initiative passed by the California voters and thus the proper defendants in the case would be the State itself, and not Governor Schwarzenegger as merely the Governor at the present time.

What is also interesting is that both the Governor and State Attorney General Jerry Brown have refused to defend in this case on the grounds that they believe that gay marriages should be afforded in California, their personal opinions which really have no grounding in either California, or the U.S. Constitution at all.

Since, of course, marriage and its definition is grounded in the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based at its signing, and marriage is an "institution" under the common law and has been for literally thousands of years in its definition as between two opposite sex individuals for the purposes of procreation, property ownership and inheritance purposes in a purely legal sense, and in a spiritual sense, a pledge of fidelity and love between the couple and God, who is pretty much on record in both the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran in just what his definition of marriage was and is in a spiritual sense.

The fact that Attorney General Brown has refused to defend in the action speaks volumes in his understanding of his powers and duties of office.

Apparently, his oath meant little as apparently did the Governor's.

There is provision, after all, for domestic and civil unions in California's statutes prior to this movement, and also legal instruments that can be bought at the local bookstores in the form of powers of attorney and the like for any and all other matters. You can, after all, leave your property to your next door neighbor or even your dog as has been the case with some eccentrics, not to mention your spouse, companion, friend, children or domestic partner with a simple will, or disinherit them if that is also your wish.

The standing issue was addressed by the 9th Circuit even in this ruling, although from the wrong angle, it appears, questioning instead of the wrong "parties of interest" to the matter the standing of this group, Protect Marriage, the sponsor of the proposition, to defend.

It appears maybe that may be the reason it was brought incorrectly to begin with - to use the standing issue as one in order to murky the waters, and force also the Governor and Attorney General to show their true colors, and set this case then up for an eventual challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court again inappropriately as not brought by the true parties in interest as the Constitutional challenge under the Bill of Rights (rather than common law "institution" which did exist in its common law form at its signing).

A court that hasn't recognized the "common law" upon which our Constitution was based for literally decades, and never more so than in the last thirty in many respects, including using foreign jurisdictional law now even for some of its renderings rather than American jurisprudence, and giving more and more "rights" to "corporate" entities, including the government itself, above those of the citizenry with respect to Bill of Rights issues in so many matters it is incredible.

I hope that before it reaches that point it is corrected to Perry vs. State of California, otherwise it would appear that any decision rendered in this matter will be null and void in either case. Since it truly isn't naming the "parties in interest" and in so NOT doing, has made the defense in this matter one in which the government appears to be facilitating this case also in order to set a nation-wide precedent with this legal technicality their scapegoat against really treason in this smoke and mirrors game.

And with the complement of the "progressively" unAmerican Supreme Court with these last several appointments particularly ones in which during those Senate hearings little questioning had to do with those justices understanding of just where their powers end with respect to Constitutional interpretation, and under what "standard" they are to reach their opinions (not judicial "case precedent" but with the intent of the framers ever present in Bill of Rights issues fundamentally, and don't think the mention of extending or expanding the definition of marriage was even entertained in their minds as a Bill of Rights "inalienable" right and outside governmental authority really, to begin with as "personal" relationships were intended to be).

The 16th again and its ramifications again rears its ugly head on this issue also, which would never be the case if the "intent" for taxation in this nation was reinstituted to its Constitutional intent.

Since there were gays back in '76 and there were marriages also, it would appear to this American Constitution believer that in such a Constitutional challenge on the "right" to marry and definition of marriage itself, which is what this case really boils down to, this would be a no-brainer.

But look for an excuse such as "good public policy" or "freedom of association" (assembly) to be their underlying rationale, in order to support that state, and the legal community at large, for another "stimulus" at the true cost of freedom and the expense of the public at large.

Then look for the medical community to get into the act mandating AIDS testing prior to issuing those licenses, so that the state (and feds in this health care reform national database that was hidden in those bills) then has a record of any and all individuals who are HIV positive, at the stroke of a keyboard, or mandate HIV treatment prior to the issuance of those licenses.

I don't believe the activist gay community has any idea how they are being used over a fundamental right to privacy of their personal lives and sexual preferences, until it hits them in about five years down the road, brought by another government funded legal defense or civil rights group, as this massive politically brought case and its defense clearly is using those licenses for more taxation and profit for either the government, or its select global industries. And "science and technology" seems to be their baby at the present time most of all.

Those domestic relations lawyers looking forward to those fees for the divorces and pre-nups are also licking their chops right about now, and the hotel, tourism and wedding planning industries in that state.

Not to mention the number of "new jobs" for judges and lawyers this will also create, for those domestic relations courts, and the county justices of the peace that will now also be needed to increase those county coffers at "for profit" prices for those licenses, although with California continuing to expand its budgets and cry poverty at the same time it continues to bankrupt its citizenry.

Schwarzenegger is, after all, not simply an avowed "capitalist" for California in for profit governmental public/private partnerships, but a personal one too.

Wonder how much he has invested in the hotel, resort and medical industries personally that just might profit from his personal, rather than Constitutional, views? Or Attorney General Brown, who has his eye on heading that state after Mr. Scwarzenegger steps down, from all reports.

If it is mandated that insurers must cover gay individuals and their domestic partners equally with herterosexual individuals without taking "risk" into consideration, or the high cost of those in vitro and other alternative reproductive costs that are "class" distinctive and are instead spread amongst the pool of policy holders, it appears that the global corporatists have found another way to "socialize" the costs of health care for higher risk groups to all - so just watch the costs of those policies skyrocket, instead of getting more affordable as the Obama Administration touted during that farce of a Health Care Reforem legislation.

I guess the costs and profits for all those drug manufacturers for this "new" disease treating the symptoms hasn't been enough, since according to my research the patent on inferon and some of those other expensive drugs is scheduled to expire in 2013, just prior to when the new mandates for health care for all begins.

This is a disease, after all, that has become an industry in and of itself along with breast cancer "awareness" and those recommended tests and races have brought in a bundle to the medical community for "reasearch", although few strides in really preventing or curing those diseases has been in sight.

I would question whether the instances of new cases of breeast cancer, as with AIDS, are going up or if some of these "treatments" themselves are resulting in new cases, such as annual invasive radioactive breast x-rays, and live virus injections and treatments.

Hello, gay community, it just might be that you are being had.