factbat.com

To demand that marriage be redefined by the law to include same sex partnerships, and thus exploit it as a mechanism capable of creating special rights designed to recognize the choice of those who engage in homosexual activity, is a clear abuse of law, and Unconstitutional.

Laws in the United States are Constitutional mechanisms that are designed to protect citizens’ basic inalienable rights. And they are only allowed to recognize rights, they are never allowed to create them.

Heterosexual unions are an existential realm of human behavior that are indisputably responsible for the creation of the entire human species, and thus are an inalienable human factor.

Therefore, marriage is such that its primary structures are protected by the law, not created by it.

Marriage began as an institution that was considered critical to ensuring human gender relations were kept above board, and preventing their being primarily controlled by simple lust.

Marriage was intended to influence basic cooperation from both genders by promoting overall respect for the creation of life. This is critical to protecting both parties in a relationship that can become volatile or exasperating over time.

Requiring that couples enter into a binding agreement is paramount to securing the interests of the entire family, since the births of children are certain to occur absent any manipulation to prevent them.

This shows that laws respecting a marriage between a heterosexual couple are merely protections, not creative mechanisms, and thus are compliant with the critical tenets of the emancipatory documents of this country which are based on “truths we find to be self evident.”

The agreement that married couples willingly enter into has been found to be a paramount venture which is complimentary to all parties, allowing them to flourish in the changing atmosphere that nature demands. This agreement is also necessary to minimize the fear, and deed, of fratricidal abandonment and abuse that can destabilize entire societies.

Conversely, same sex couples are not bound by any like element. In even the most structured homosexual union, there is never the slightest expectation, or consideration, for the creation of life that is inexplicably inherent within even the most casually engaged, intimate heterosexual contact.

This begs two very important questions concerning same sex marriage. One: where is the bond between two same sex partners that is expected to supersede that of each of the partners’ separate blood relations, such as parents and siblings?

And two: what is the actual basis for same sex marriage.

First of all, the bond between same sex couples does not consist of an element of human progress, since it can never produce life. Therefore, not only does this raise yet another question of why it is often labeled as progressive, but draws into debate the level of interest either partner has a right to claim over that of another in a same sex marriage.

Considering the fact that a mother of a single male child is deprived her ability to have grandchildren if the son is homosexual - and marries another man - how can the rights of the son’s spouse suddenly exist as those which would supersede the rights of the mother?

The answer: only if they are redefined by an act of “creative law”, where that law is clearly crafted to supersede that of natural law. And, unfortunately, any such law is then Unconstitutional.

The question of vested interest becomes extremely convoluted as it becomes further obfuscated by the objections of a same sex marriage. Truly assessing the logical implications and actual ramifications of this issue are obviously well beyond the capabilities of any government, be they local, state or federal.

Second. It has become clear that the only agenda driving the issue of same sex marriage is a politicized one.

The fact is that there is no actual legal basis for same sex couples to demand the right to marry, and their primary goal is simply to exploit the institution of marriage as a bargaining chip, or a tool to force the recognition of their choice to be gay.

This means that laws which were crafted to protect people’s rights, are now being exploited as a means of denying people’s rights.

Regardless of what the motives of proponents in this foray may be, either well meaning or not, the truth is that there is no legal basis for allowing government to recognize same sex marriage.

However, if same sex partners desire something that will protect their rights, any such legal recourse must fall under a structure which also respects the inherent rights of the other parties involved, and the fact that family members rights exist to a degree that they can be found to supersede those of the interests of the spouse in a same sex partnership.

Marriage is an institution that is recognized under the law as a primary element of security critical to the needs of American society. It does not exist because of the law, nor was it created by a law. Marriage is simply protected by the law.

To employ the law as creative a mechanism by using it to expressly justify any action, as opposed to simply protecting one, is a clear misuse of the letter of the law.

One of the most relevant factors in the issue of same sex marriage, is that it does not fall under statutes of criminal or business law, but instead exists more within the jurisdiction of family law.

In family law the rights of the various parties are such that they are bound to simple mechanisms such as implied consent and relative genetic connections where familial relations often exist beyond the reach of the Judiciary.

Therefore, to propose that any law can be interpreted or crafted as a means of controlling the institution of marriage is an attempt to use the law to manipulate the will of the people. This, of course, is unacceptable, and a clear violation of the United States Constitution.

If any law is found to be such that it is non-compliant with the Constitution, it can only exist as a matter of suggested policy, and, therefore, is unenforceable.

Laws in the United States are only allowed to operate in the protection of inalienable human rights. Any law which seeks to create a human right, is thereby not a law in this country.

To expect the law to create human rights begins the origins for a policy that could allow laws which can supersede that Constitutional tenets now constraining government to a membership “of, for and by the people,” and set the stage for an extremely ominous production that will allow the government to overthrow those who are the true authority in this nation; we the people.

The creation of legal same sex marriage also allows law to enter the equation to the extreme that, in the near future, legal creativity could become the source of wide spread homogeneity where insemination of host members by a minority of specific donors would become commonplace.

The possibility for exclusionary measures influencing and governing the halls of Congress and Justice are only a heartbeat away in a nation that expects the laws to expressly create rights and protections for anyone, especially a disaffected group of people who’s rights are essentially based on a behavioral dysfunction.

While it is true that the institution of marriage may not be a perfect structure, the basic ideology it abides under is easily proven to be an infallible one that is both crafted and controlled by natural elements that pervade every element of life on this planet, and which controls its essentially divine atmosphere of confluence within the solar system that enables the very existence of humans.

To propose that a law can be created which seeks to undermine, and ignore, this basic construct is preposterous.