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

Sonia Sotomayor Vows To Rule According To The Law: But Which?

Today Sonia Sotomayor had her first "meet and greet" with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee over her potential confirmation as the first Obama appointed Supreme Court Justice.

A press conference and condensed version of what occurred during this first meeting was held shortly thereafter, attended by some of the movers and shakers of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Ms. Sotomayor appeared also to be all smiles, and the mainstream liberal media soon after issued their poll results that "over 50% of Americans support" Ms. Sotomayor's nomination.

She was appointed to the federal bench by the first Bush, in which there was very little scrutiny by Congress or the brouhaha that surrounds such matters as the appointment of a Supreme Court justice, due to the fact that they still remain in office for life, and there hasn't been a hearing or impeachment of a Supreme Court justice ever under the "good behavior" provisions in over 200 years due to the unlawful extension in 1805 during the Chase impeachment proceedings of extra-Constitutional provisions of judicial immunity for any and all actions in which a claim of "political bias" can be extended.

This was the second "political" usurpation along with Marbury vs. Madison by the judiciary, which then created an "unchecked" branch in this country, and again amended our Constitution without going through that formal amendment process - since "good behavior" clearly was intended to mean ruling by the judicial "seat of the pants," as it were and not the language or provisions as contained within our Constitution

The Jefferson Democrat/Republicans were then attempting to institute this "check" provision during Chase, and it has never again been used due to "politics" rather than "the Law," holding sway a mere 18 years after its signing. And now our Supreme Court has also become more and more political, and less and less Constitutional, by the decade.

And that historically has included, it appears, just about any and all Supreme Court rulings, even the increasingly off the wall ones, and has contributed to the judicial activism in their progressively extra-Constitutional renderings to this very day.

For the record and in order to claify Ms. Sotomayor's previous remarks in 2001 with respect to the infamous statement referring to her Latina heritage as qualifying her perhaps better than another justice who hadn't "lived the life she had," Ms. Sotomayor told senators she would follow the law as a judge without letting her life experiences inappropriately influence her decisions.

"Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, quoted the nominee as saying in their closed-door session.

My question is, which "law" is she referring to? Our Constitution as the ultimate authority, or federal or even state statutes or their Constitutional provisions which may or may not be in accordance with it - since it is clear more and more that our Congress is not even reading a great many bills before they are voted on and passed due to various contrived "emergencies" (such as the Patriot Act, stimulus and bank bailouts), and a great many of those former statutes throughout the years are questionably in accordance with it.

Will we continue to desecrate it in the interests of "public policy" (socialism), "public safety" (also socialism), or the nebulous "state interests" (fascism and/or socialism) when it comes to American Bill of Rights issues for lawful American citizens?

Will we refuse to hear hot potato cases or issues within the Court's jurisdiction in order to protect political interests of one or the other mainstream political parties or their "corporate" interests?

Will Ms. Sotomayor consult our Constitution and various LAWFUL peace time treaties or trade agreements entered into and ratified BY CONGRESS when it involves international concerns, or opinions of college professors, law reviews and the ultimate transgression against our Constitution, international law?

Several justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the now retired Sandra Day O'Connor are on record as stating that they believe that a Supreme Court justice should be afforded the right to consult international laws in rendering some of their opinons, even though "globalized" law was not at all the founders intent for the sovereign United States clearly due to the very reason for that Revolutionary War to begin with.

So I do hope that there is much more information released to the public and press with respect to Ms. Sotomayor's statements, than those that are now coming out of these press conferences, interviews with politicians, and the various press releases.

But I doubt it. In the piece Harry Reid, D-NV is quoted as stating that he had not read a single one of her opinions during her 17 years on the federal bench, and if all went as planned "would not have to do so."

I guess we know Harry's criteria is about "politics" and not about "the Law."

The fundamental question is, exactly which "ultimate" authority and law are you referring to, Ms. Sotomayor, since a great many of the sitting and former justices seem at this point with respect to both domestic and foreign issues to have been not simply confused, but truly unaware of the actual document which affords them the right to hold that lofty position.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090602/4a24a3c0_3ca6_15526200906021074699449

The Tiller Murder: Much More Than Media Spins?

For the last several days on most of the mainstream media outlets, there has been much reported with respect to the shooting and murder of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas, the middle of the Bible belt in middle America.

Such instances as have occurred in the few cases of such violence in the past have attracted extensive media coverage due to the division that still remains in this country over the abortion issue, and especially late term or "partial birth" abortions as were reported conducted by Dr. Tiller at his Kansas clinic.

Much rhetoric has been spewed by both sides of this issue, and the media feeding into the frenzy so much so that this instance has again dominated our television news casts and reporting for several days.

Much misinformation has also been a part of the media hype and reporting. On the one hand, Dr. Tiller is being painted as almost a saint due to his providing a service that few physicians perform in order to help poor, hapless women who have had to undergo abortions late in the pregnancies for various medical reasons, or due to criminal rape or incest.

On the other hand, he is being painted as a murderer of innocent fetuses who would have been viable and alive if not for Dr. Tiller' and his clinic's services.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and there was also a political motivation involved. No one has questioned in the slightest at this point a great many irregularities that have been reported both in the media, and the details as has been reported of the crime itself.

First, Dr. Tiller has been painted as performing a service that few physicians in this country undertake. In fact, one news source quoted that his clinic was "only one of three" that provided such services as abortions past the 20th week of pregnancy.

That is a blatant falsehood, as there are several of such clinics in most states now throughout the country due to the fact that most states have been as hesitant as the federal government in addressing the late term and partial birth issue now almost 30 years post Roe, which only addressed an abortion conducted in the first trimester pregnancy.

Second, if the perpetrator was actually a "fundamentalist" Christian and vehement anti-abortion radical, then why would this shooting have occurred, of all places, at the church where Dr. Tiller was serving as an usher reportedly? If this gentleman truly believed he was "doing God's work," as has also been reported, would he not have chosen another day rather than the Sabbath in middle America, a day of rest and worship?

And if Dr. Tiller was truly limiting his practice to those circumstances in which the fetus was no longer viable, medical emergencies, and cases of rape or incest, wouldn't a hospital rather than a medical "clinic," with better facilities in the event of potential complications be the proper place in order for such medical procedures to be carried out?

The instances and health risks of such late term abortions have been documented in many medical journals throughout the nation at this point due to the actual manner in which these abortions are carried out. Post operative hemorrahaging is becoming more and more common the more this risky procedure continues to be performed.

The militants on both sides have drawn their battle lines. Even Mr. Obama made a public statement with respect to the crime and his feelings on the abortion issue.

But still there is the negligence of our federal government and Congress to address this basic duty now thirty years post Roe, and the incidences, public outrage and political fodder has raised the national temperature over this issue, while the politicians continue to use such instances as this and the divisiveness over the abortion issue as just more political rhetoric for votes come election time.

Its a hard job, but that is what our elected officials are for, are they not? Defining "life" for Constitutional and legal purposes, and drawing a line in the sand between purely "elective" abortions and those necessitated by medical emergency or necessary premature deliveries is something that is long overdue.

Thirty years now post Roe we have birth control methods that were unknown at the time that decision was rendered, and also methods to detect pregnancy now within literally days and/or hours of conception.

The founders based an entire document in order to secure "life" for them and their posterity.

Isn't it time that our Congress got to the hard work of tackling these issues, and in addition many, many other issues and complications that have arisen due to continued federal negligence such as this, and cut the lobbyists, bankers and federal pork beggers loose for a session or two while it truly gets down to the matter of our government, rather than business and self interests?