California And Its Judiciary Need A Reality Check

There was an mainstream media AP article in the news again with respect to the ruling by a California federal district court judge over the lifting of the ban on gay marriages in the State of California. It does appear this particular judge has a love for the limelight, due to making this ruling against the will of the California voters (although, of course, in this age of "out of district" funding for state and local matters, and unrepresentative government at every level, and illegally voting foreigners in many state and federal elections at this point it is even hard to ascertain what the true will of the California voters actually is), yet continuing to interject his opinions and authority weeks later.

The latest: His assertion that he doesn't feel that the groups or individuals who may be involved in challenging or appealing his ruling have any "standing" to do so since they would be unable to prove there would be any adverse "impact" directly to them should California begin granting "permission" and marriage licenses to same sex individuals in that state.

What about the public costs for the eventual divorces of over half of those unions for their dissolutions if the statistics with respect to opposite sex marriages are any indication of the chances that these marriages will last "until death us do part?"

Of course, I won't go into how totally ludicrous it is in this country in which our entire civil legal system is grounded in the common law with respect to our Constitution, and marriage actually is an institution with a history of thousands of years pre-dating even our Constitution wherein even the Roman system of government which had a plethora of gay individuals did not officially recognize same sex unions as in the same league as heterosexual ones insofar as rights of inheritance, etc. (of course adoptions now granted to gay individuals were not then afforded either, nor had "science and technology" advanced to the degree in reproductive medicine that it has today).

But I wonder how the little problem of a gay individual with a biological child, who then has an in vitro child or surrogate will be handled if there is any disputes over rights of inheritance in the future?

I mean, has this judge actually considered the impact upon future generations and our legal system with this ruling? Or the absolute arrogance of the judiciary in this country itself in its even attempting to redefine an institution that has a history of thousands of years in the present era to begin with and for which they really have no Constitutional authority over and above the common law definitions?

And don't you think that little matter of "standing" would have been addressed prior to putting that proposition on the ballot to begin with?

If the citizens of California do not have the right to challenge or appeal such a fundamental percept under our civil codes and the common law upon which our Constitution is based, then how is it that federal court judges such as Mr. Walker and the appellate courts are granting "standing" to foreigners such as the illegal Mexican immigrants under those Bill of Rights now PROGRESSIVELY?

Including that out of control 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Just what is occurring in our American law schools today, insofar as teaching the basics in our Constitution, and Constitutional law?

Hello, Mr. Walker, just who do you think those courts were provided for anyway, if not Americans - and if this is a Bill of Rights issue and challenge, and the Supreme Court has not yet reversed its fundamentally flawed decisions with respect to extending PROGRESSIVELY Bill of Rights protections to "corporate" entities (not to mention that it does not appear that the group challenging this measure is a "commercial" corporation, in any event anyway), then upon what errant nutjob prior ruling are you basing your conclusions with respect to the question of standing to begin with?

And its origins really have to do with inheritance and other rights of biological offspring, since the adoption, insemination or surrogacy process itself outside "natural" or biological procreation, and is a legal process in and of itself with respect to such issues?

This entire passion play is beginning to appear rather ludicrous and the ultimate aim for the state again self-serving for all that added tax revenues for the local coffers for those "license" fees taken into account, given that marriages are nothing more than civil contracts, and there already is in force provision for domestic unions in the State of California and many others throughout the nation for same sex domestic unions. And that there are already legal provisions under powers of attorney, and other legal instruments to secure the fundamental rights of committed individuals for property and inheritance purposes and even taxation with "head of household" provisions.

It appears once again that the major reason for this push is in order for the gay community to somehow gain "legitimacy" or social acceptance for their unions on parity with heterosexual unions, which is something that no matter how many years, and how many court decisions, is not somthing that can be forced upon 100% of the American people or heterosexual community that have any religious beliefs whatsoever in the three major religions, which at last count was at least 70% of Americans.

Moral acknowledgement is what appears to be the ultimate aim and equality of the definition of marriage itself, an institution again which pre-dates our Constitution by thousands of years and is, after all, based entirely on civil common laws which already have been expanded with regard to recordation, at least in California and the majority of other states which have provided licenses or recordation means for "civil" or "domestic" unions.

A "marriage" is nothing more than a public pledge in front of two witnesses announcing a commitment of love, and a shared life and property during the term of the union or "partnership," at its most basic, and a spiritual union between the couple and God for those that choose to have their unions sanctioned instead by their house of worship.

What will be next for the gay activist community, rather than the mainstream gay community who believe their private lives are actually private? Legislation then aimed at the clergy and churches mandating that pastors or other religious leaders must perform such ceremonies if so requested? While the aim here may be marketed to the public as one of merely "civil" rights, it does appear that there just could be a fundamentally greater agenda here in using these laws then to assault the religious community eventually whose biblical teachings on marriage would forbid extending religious sanctions to such unions at their most basic precepts.

This is, of course, where the PROGRESSIVES in their also illegally redefining the First Amendment protections of "freedom of" religion to outside its original intent to "freedom from" religion have been focusing their activities as of late due to those great statutes providing for legal fees for lawyers bringing any and all actions that can be broadly defined as "civil rights" have been using for their own stimuluses and corporate gains.

So in those civil unions before civil justices, just what part of the marriage ceremony itself is missing since there are civil unions conducted by justices of the peace there as there are for heterosexual couples which were in effect before the "activist" gay community still were not satisfied.

The civil laws have been changed to afford "parity" with respect to the common law rights of marriage, which require no "license" to begin with, save the commercial insurers with respect to health insurance provisions and the like, and the the gay community could save themselves and the other taxpayers of this country from the costs of picking up the legal tabs for this civil rights challenge by focusing more so on where it belongs.

The insurers denying them and their posterity coverage under those plans extended to heterosexual couples, although I'm sure that after this ruling those suits will be next on the agenda to keep those lawyers working for decades to come especially in light of this most recent unconstitutional mandate of Washington and tyranny in "fining" Americans who have paid for many of those community hospitals and the like with their property taxes. It appears that especially for the boomer generation are going to be bled dry even further for the "global economy" and Wall Street bankers and politicos gain at the cost of the public at large, even those not invested in Wall Street or those not affiliated with the Globalist Party in power on the Hill, and apparently also in California's positions of authority.

Just imagine when "parity" in the health care field does eventually gain more ground, the number of civic institutions which are dedicated to finding cures to AIDS will become unable to continue or exist, and then the search for the cure for this deadly disease will not be quite so important as guaranteeing a steady stream of future policy-holders which will need to take out riders for AIDs coverage. I mean, this disease is a virus and it is amazing the amount of monies those pharmaceutical companies and insurers have already mnade off the victims of this disease or the American public while a "cure" for the disease itself is nowhere in sight.

A disease that never existed until the present day, or is it merely a strain of an already identified viral infection, since it appears treating the symptoms of HIV and the AIDS virus has become an industry in and of itself PROGRESSIVELY.

The judge also commented that it was his opinion that the challengers to his recent ruling would need the "permission" of either Governor Schwartezeneggar or Attorney General Jerry Brown in order to pursue their claims.

Huh? The opposing citizenry needs "permission" of the Governor for what the gay community has continued to portray as a "civil rights" case?

Mr. Walker should be suing his law school for his tuition costs, it appears to this writer, since it appears he is another of the British trained lawyers holding court from the bench rather than ruling according to his Constitutional oath of office in issuing this latest opinion publicly in furtherance of his original ruling.

Stay tuned. Since this farce of a civil rights abridgement appears is far from over.