New York's Gay Marriage Move: Politics as Usual

It was reported in the mainstream media that after several attempts to get a gay marriage bill passed in the New York legislature, the special interests have finally succeeded - again, diametrically opposed to the foundation of American government and the Constitution upon which it is based.

Marriage is a private contract, after all, and the government has no business "legalizing" or "sanctioning" any or all personal relationships, until of course they then dissolve for "breach of contract."

Appears there may be many lawyers and businesses representatives on the New York legislature, unaware of their Constitutional breach or aware but "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."

How many divorce lawyers also petitioned for this "new" law, since marriage is also, of course, an institution with its roots in not simply the "common law" upon which that Constitution is based, but also over 3,000 years of legal precedent.

Leave it to New York, that bastion of social unrest and their Wall Street and global corporate special interests to once again favor their economic welfare, over the foundational government created by those founders.

Along with those other six states which also have used our courts, and their special interests these past five or six years to forment their unlawful agendas.

Rather than address the unequal treatment under progressive laws which have been given to married couples, over those single individuals, heads of household and single parents, or long term cooperative living arrangements and regulatory agency "rules" such as Social Security which are not covered by powers of attorneys or state laws governing rights of inheritance.

This was a bold move, which I do feel will come back to haunt the gay community several years down the road.

They have now "invited" Big Brother into their domestic partnership, and custodial arrangements. And through those blood tests involved prior to issuing marriage licenses, even their own health records and personal information.

Be careful what you wish for.

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.

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.

New Hampshire Goes Green: Passes Gay Marriage For Bucks

It appears now the sixth state in the nation has "gone green," in passing legislation with respect to gay marriage in the United States with New Hampshire now joining the pack in the "liberal" and blue New England states.

New Hampshire's Governor has cowtowed apparently to the lawyers and Bar Association lobby (largest lobbying group by far at both the federal and state levels in some capacity or another), Chamber of Comerce, gay rights activists and New Hampshire, Inc.'s desire for more state revenue by passing into "law" several bills now affording gay couples the supposed "rights" that are guaranteed under the New Hampshire Constitution to traditional two sex couples.

No matter that the institution of marriage is actual governed under the common civil law as set forth in the Magna Carta and under the "natural" law in which the founders created this great nation over 200 years ago. It appears the U.S. Constitution also is not one in which the New Hampshire state government gives any credence, in addition to the federal government at this point in any manner whatsoever.

An article written by a writer with the the Baptist Press announcing the new legislation indicated that the citizens of New Hampshire have really no recourse to this action other than voting those members of the legislature and the governor out of office next election, rather than as the citizens of California had in initiating a state constitutional amendment after an off the wall California Supreme Court ruling also affording such "rights" in California.

The writer stated that the New Hampshire Constitution has no such provisions.

This writer would disagree. In a government of the people, and since this really is a federal matter and "institution" that is involved here there are several courses the citizens of New Hampshire can take with respect to this legislation - either filing a lawsuit in the federal courts with respect to the common law upon which marriage is based and the founders intent with respect to those "natural law" provisions, or initiate their own Constitutional amendment as California did, since there is no need to provide in codified law a "right" for such an undertaking within any states constitution.

It is an "assumed right," and also common law right in any government specifically declared "of the people, by the people, for the people," as the U.S. Constitutuion and founding documents so state. And also volumes of writings of the founders on just what "unalienable" rights were (as contained in the Bill of Rights), as "endowed by the Creator."

I think the Creator's views are also pretty well documented on such an issue.

And those new "laws" have yet to also be placed before a jury for evaluation as to also their applicability, since juries also in this nation have the right to not only review the facts in any case before them, but also whether or not the "law" is Constitutional, or applicable in the matter placed before them. This is what is known as "jury nullification."

So don't lose hope, citizens of New Hampshire that support traditional marriage and "natural law."

It appears this was more of a "job stimulus" for the legal profession and Chamber of Commerce members in the wedding industries and resorts in New Hampshire as has been the "jobs and the economy other the Constitution" provisions of this legislation and these judicial "opinions" as with most of the other states. Think of all that tax revenue the states will also gain now in violating the Constitution and the sums for all those "license" fees.

And the hefty sums that will be paid to those New Hampshire domestic relations attorneys for some of those divorces.

And how much more taxes the state citizens will be required to pay to give even more jobs to the legal industry in the form of the judges that will be needed for some of those "divorces."

At a time when the economy in most states throughout the nation is now in the toilet, the state legislators and governors really are getting on the "gay marriage bandwagon" in order to help pay their future salaries and their future campaign coffers most of all, it appears, and in times such as these apparently the true Rule of Law can be suspended at will in the interests of "state benefits and interests."

Look for that excuse to be brought up if this ever gets to the Supreme Court, along with the "equal protection under the law" garbage - since there is absolutely no "protection" in marriage for either party anymore in traditional marriage due to community property laws, and no fault divorce, and prior to state involvement on any level, simply recording such "contracts" in the country recorder's office or courthouse records was the "common law" procedure, especially since now there are even laws that have to do with people who die intestate.

And in Louisiana and quite a few other states, it isn't the spouse who automatically inherits all separately owned property at all due to the availability of "joint ownership" designations now within most contracts for home, auto and other purchases, it is actually the "legal" children of any marriage. And adoption papers secure those rights for gay domestic unions involving children since they cannot "procreate" naturally without medical intervention in some form or another, outside adoption.

Most other civil "rights" in marriage now can be satisfied with simple powers of attorneys, wills and joint ownership contracts which cost nothing to prepare and the forms for which can be obtained at your local bookstore.

"Natural law" is one which is not recognized now in New Hampshire, one of those thirteen original colonies.

And Madison is spinning right about now.

http://townhall.com/news/religion/2009/06/03/nh_6th_state_to_legalize_gay_marriage

Lawyers Strike Back: Gore v. Bush Lawyers to Challenge California Ruling

As could be expected in the United States of America, a country with more lawyers in this nation than all of Europe and many other nations combined, the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding the Proposition 8 initiative passed by the residents of the State of California is now going to be challenged by two members of the American Bar Association in a "bipartisan" partnership.

And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?

The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.

Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.

Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation. All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions. And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."

And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.

So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.

After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.

As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.

If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parents actually for?

Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.

And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted? It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it?

Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?

And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense? Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent providing more jobs for lawyers.

So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/same.sex.marriage.court/

The Constitution, Common Law and Gay Marriage Issue

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison

In a unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling granting civil unions for gay couples in the state citing the "equal protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution as their basis. In addition, in writing for the Court it wrote:

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective..."

And further,

Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

To this writer, this is just simply another example of a "political" rendering by an activist court acting outside the restraints of their Constitutional duties of office. Per Madison's quote above, any and all decisions reached by the Court's in any state in this nation must be considered with the intent of the founders also in mind above all else, otherwise we do not have Constitutional government, we have a "bastardized" form of it.

Insofar as the position that this is an "equal rights" issue, and that the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution would apply in such a case, I would also take exception. The "equal rights" and "unalienable" rights the founder's were referring to were those given to citizens by the Creator, a Creator which they acknowledged, although some were not Christians, merely deists - believers in God.

Marriage also as an institution "legally" is defined according to the common law of England at the time of its signing and as preceded by the Magna Carta.

The "freedom" to marry anyone and everyone you wish was not one of those they were referring to. Utah was deemed inadmissible as a state unless and until it discontinued its historic practice of plural marriage for just such reasons due to its Mormon roots. What's next? The gays acknowledge the "unconstitutional" issue of plural marriage, but not basic biology and nature's law in simply this issue?

God actually has already spoken on this issue, and gays were in existence at the time the Constitution was signed. The gay population has existed since Rome and biblical times, and even the Romans - a pagan nation - did not afford marriage rights to gay couples. The slavery issue was fundamentally different, and was a matter of contention from the time of the original Constitutional Convention. Slaves were considered "property" instead of "people."

As such an entirely different matter, and the civil rights movement of the 60's had to do with equal rights in the workplace and was not a gender issue, but a racial issue affecting both sexes equally due to hiring practices and other discriminatory issues and leftover biases after the Civil War era.

As far as "equal protection," Iowa is a no-fault divorce state. So there is no "equal protection" in any manner whatsoever for the parties in a marriage "contract," which is what a civil union actually is. None whatsoever. "No fault" divorce basically took care of "fault", even removing protections in the event of of adultery or abuse, "violations" of both covenants and contracts as a "breach." Such removals haven't historically boded well for the children in many instances of traditional marriages in this country since those protections were progressively removed that these civil "unions" and contracts were actually originally meant to protect.

In fact, the divorce rate in traditional marriages has soared to now over 50%.

And insofar as any supposed "privileges" of married couples, gays also have those too. Powers of attorney for most legal matters can be assigned to your next door neighbor if you wish, either limited to one legal transaction or a general power of attorney over any individual's legal affairs. Wills can be prepared for property or inheritance issues, and anyone can purchase property under "joint tenancy" or hold "joint title" to cars or other significant property.

For tax issues, there is the "head of household" option also and many married couples file separately if income levels are such that it is more advantageous to do so.

You don't even need a lawyer for any of the above, since most standard wills and powers of attorney can be purchased for a relatively small cost at your local bookstore or even online. And most married couples still need to execute these documents in the event of hospitalization or any other legal matter which are included in hospital admission forms that have such powers of attorney built into the forms themselves.

So what "privileges" do the gay community perceive are lacking, or just what "equal protection" have they been seeking?

If there were or are any under Iowa law, the proper Constitutional method would be addressing those, and actually getting those laws readdressed and rescinded.

Gay couples can adopt, and the adoption papers themselves protect rights of inheritance as a traditional couple's adoption would. I'm really perplexed at just what they feel is missing, other than social acceptance - which cannot be legislated on any level. In fact, they have now "invited in" the government to their union, rather than protect it from governmental interference. Sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This new "law" is really nothing more than another Lawyer's Economic Act for the domestic relations attorneys in Iowa.

Be prepared now for more challenges across the country, since there is a federal statute which affords attorneys in this country their legal fees for matters which can in any way be tied to "civil rights," whether or not they are valid challenges anymore doesn't seem to be the issue - since the state courts don't seem to be evaluating many of these cases on merits or the Constitution in any way whatsoever as of late.

Even the Supreme Court now has become more political and less Constitutional in their findings it seems more and more by the year. Now going so far as to use even foreign country's holdings in their deliverations rather than the Constitution and it's provisions.

This was nothing more than a political rendering by a rouge court, and I would guess for the pure benefit of the national attention and recognition many involved in the case would get, and also for the benefit of the Supreme Court members "associates" in the legal industry who were defending the case. The State was appealing the lower court's decision, therefore, the attorneys involved for the "non-profit" organization who originally brought the action would be entitled to their legal fees courtesy of the American people. Purely political.

Marriage is an "institution" with it's foundations in the common law of England. on which our Bill of Rights is based - with the exception of a few provisions thrown in with respect to the right to bear arms, free speech, and assembly, and jury trials for all civil and criminal matters which were not afforded in the sovereign nation of England.

It is God actually who set his plan for marriage in the creation of Adam and Eve. Although the federal government may not interfere in the religious beliefs and practices of citizens in this country, there was never any intent to remove any and all mention of God in our public institutions, or in the laws of this country. None whatsoever.

That provision was merely included in order to prevent a "State" or nationwide religion as had occurred in England, and avoid the dissention that had historically occurred in fights between the Catholics and Protestants, and the Church of England. In fact, Benjamin Franklin in his speech prior to the ratification of the Constitution makes mention of the fact that it was sectarian differences they were wishing to avoid with the arguments over religion in the first place.

And the false Christianity which had been historically practiced in England which had persecuted subjects of the crown in wars and religious tests of loyalty to God or the sovereign repeatedly due to those same sectarian differences.

Expect this decision to be challenged. It most likely will be. The courts in this country are becoming more and more political, and unconstitutional, it appears each and every year.

But even absent any religious bias or basis at all but simply on legal grounds, with all the rights and privileges under Iowa law available to the gay community which have already been provided under the commitment statutes, and powers of attorneys, wills, joint tenancy and joint title provisions for property, this entire movement seems rather ludicrous at this point.

Adoption papers secure rights of inheritance for childen involved, so I'm perplexed at this point.

The truth is the gay community are actually asking the government now to get involved in their personal relationship, and it's dissolution if and when it ends, and it will be the legal community that will most benefit from these provisions I guarantee. That and the state for the license fees in order to "permit" gays to marry.

Be careful what you wish for.