factbat.com

In California's 'Same-Sex Marriage' debate the levels of bias and political shenanigans appear to be creeping from the shadows like pedophiles lurking in, and around, the public toilets of city parks. And the Unconstitutional -- and thus illegal -- actions of Court Magistrates, whom have declared themselves veritable dictatorial rulers over an entire state, now draw into question the possible influence of an administration governed by a chief executive officer who, himself, has been proven to be a sexual deviant.

To deviate (pun intended) from the primary subject-at-hand for a moment. The fact is that Barack Obama has been a long time, card-holding member of an upper-scale, gay men's bath house in Chicago named "Man Country". And was closely associated with several homosexual choir boys at Jeremiah Wright's controversial church, which Obama faithfully attended for over 20 years; allegedly involved in casual sexual encounters with all of them.

Furthermore, much of the details in this very delicate matter are unknown to the general public due to the fact that two of the men, Nate Spencer and Donald Young, were murdered execution style in November of 2007 as the 2008 presidential race was beginning to heat-up. And allegedly the third person of interest, Larry Bland, died of health issues brought on by HIV AIDS.

Not only is there credible testimony coming from a man named Larry Sinclaire, who claims to have been involved in a sexual encounter with Barack Obama in a limousine outside of a prominant club in Chicago in 1999, where they smoked cocaine together, and then again at his hotel in Gurney two days later. There are also police reports and hushed-up articles which shed light on Obama's criminal exploits and Crack cocaine use during periods when he was an Illinois Senator involved in passing laws specifically targeting -- and labeling -- drug users as outlaws.

So, now that a small number of the POTUS conflicts of interest have been addressed, amid the obvious implications that a significant number of the people closely tied to Obama must also be considered compromised, it is time to return to the primary matter of alleged United States Justices exibiting like behavior.

One rather odius twist in the Gay Marriage debate -- which came as a complet shock to this author -- is that the ruling handed down in the first case, which, in 2010, initially declared Propostion 8 to be Unconstitutional, was nothing more than personal opinions drafted by a severely biased judge, former Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker, who was not legally qualified to rule on the matter since he is a homosexual who has been in a relationship with another man for many years.

However, even setting this delicate subject of conflicting interests aside, the fact is that the United States Constitution does not allow any single person to rule on such a matter. Nor does it recognize the decision of even a three member, State appointed, faculty such as that from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which, Tuesday, concluded that the "lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians".

Moreover, for this latest three member body to have somehow found it logical to assume, without any conclusive evidence whatsoever, that Vaughn was not in any way biased by his affiliation with the moving party in this matter when handing down his ruling, they have quite literally exhumed Adolf Hitler, and pronounced him supremely qualified to solely adjudicate a litigation between Jews and Mussolini.

Any magistrate worth his weight in peanut butter would have honorably recused himself simply due to the inherent conflicts of interest Mr. Vaughn was most certainly presented with.

Furthermore, a real man worth his weight in gold would have admitted that it is likely that no individual could ever truly trust their self to equally regard both parties, and the many interests of all concerned -- including those who are, or will ever, be affected, by the verdict -- when charged with ruling on such a delicate and contoversial state of human affairs.  

The unequivocal truth which supersedes all powers granted any referee appointed to oversee such social conflict is that this populist debate is entirely confined to members of this nation's most sovereign group: "We The People". And there is not any city, county, state or federal official, or membership of officials, whom has, or has ever, been granted the power to rule over any sovereign, or group of sovereigns, in this nation.

An MSN artilce states that the Constitution permits communities to enact laws they feel to be imperative, but requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law which treats different classes of people differently.

However, homosexuals -- a group which itself actually varies widely in "classes" of people -- are not being treated any differently than anyone else simply because they may be refused official approval through the prohibition of a marriage certificate which would essentially require that society illogically ignore the fact that same-sex unions are basically unnatural.

Moreover, the courts do not appear to believe there is any legitimate reason to secure, defend or even attempt to, in any way, preserve the sanctity of one of the most important institutions governing relations between a man and woman in any society. The institution of marriage. As if it is the Court's right or responsibility to make such a determination.

Marriage has long been restricted to unions between "one man and one woman". Proposition 8 was not actually anything new. It was enacted for a very clear reason, and that reason was to protect such a provision from the encroaching destruction of society by the Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws, and shamelessly denying the efforts of this nation to secure its position as a morally sound preserver of human equity.

The Supreme Court's actions have now opened the door to any number of aberrant unions being officially recognized as legitimate. What's next, polygamy? Beastiality? Maybe even marrying children and babies?

As sick as this sounds, it is remarkably not much of a surprise. Since the Supreme Court's action occured in November of 2008, as Barack Obama, one of the most depraved and criminal presidents in American history, was gearing-up to take control of the Oval Office.

This nation is once again under attack by corrosive elements which, as usual, appear to be employing a "divide and conquer" strategy that could introduce mechanisms capable of bringing the United States to a quick and bitter end.

There is much evidence to show that a society which reaches a point where the majority of its people are homosexuals, begins a rapid decline on many levels.

The current debate is not as much a Constitutional conflict, as much as it is a battle for survival.

The fact is that homosexuals are not in any way being denied their basic human rights simply because a majority of citizens logically desire to prohibit actions which debase the institution of marriage.

Therefore, this matter is entirely reserved to a majority decision, arrived at by a secure count of a properly announced, and attended, ballot measure; be it a proposition, or referendum. And no State representative has the authority to overrule any such majority decision.

The people of this nation cannot be forced by the Court to support anyones behaviors. Whether it be someone's choice to believe in an intelligent supreme being, have sex with a person of their own gender, eat meat, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, be a vegetarian, whatever. Nor can anyone be forced by the Court to oppose anyone's decision to engage in actions, providing they are compliant with basic common law.

However, the United States Constitution most certainly protects everyone's right to choose for themselves whether or not it is in their best interests to support or oppose the choices of others. The only requirement is that no person can ever be denied thier inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness simply because their lawful choices may confict with another's.

For instance, a homosexual cannot be placed at risk of attack by those who oppose them. As long as they are law abiding in their actions, then they can live where they want, eat where they want, shop where they want, play where they want, and even engage in non-obscene affection for each other wherever they want. And do so without fear of reprisal or criminal discrimination against them.

This nation's founding documents do not, however, grant homosexuals the right to infringe upon the "truths we find to be self evident." And thus, if a majority finds that this species' proper progress and survival is best protected by confining the official recognition and definition of "marriage" to that of a sacred bond between "one man and one woman" only, then this recognition is unequivocally protected under the auspices of the United States Constitution.

The only Constitutionality affecting this current debate is the fact that said Constitution prohibits any State official from doing anything more than ensuring that the matter does not devolve into an aggressive or criminal representation of one group or individual over and above any other. Or produce, support or promote actions which can be conclusively shown to infringe upon the inalienable rights of all people.

Furthermore, even the lopsided, misrepresentation of the vote that passed Proposition 8 in the first place was undeniably designed to sway the majority in favor of Same Sex Marriage. Since there is almost no doubt that nearly every homosexual in California showed up to cast their ballots in opposition to the proposition, while a great many heterosexuals were unaware that the matter was even being put to a populist vote.

However, the propostion still passed with a 52% majority. And regardless of any insinuation, or even outright proof, that various religious groups showed up in force to vote against Same-Sex Marriage, this only proves that a vast number of the citizens in California do not realize that this matter has a great deal of affect on their daily lives. And if given the opportunity to attend publicly televised debates on the ramifications of a measure which requires all citizens to openly support unabashed homosexual behavior -- including pronouncing them somehow qualified to procure primary status within American society, adopting children and demanding Unconstitutional rights -- they may very well find it in their best interests to vote against it.

Simply the fact that, in the past, many homosexuals were often denied basic human rights by various radical groups, religous zealots, law enforcement, and political organizations does not now somehow grant anyone the authority to create special rights for them as some form of remuneration or another.

Homosexuals have always been protected by the law, regardless that these protections were sometimes ignored or denied them. And the truth is that there are many people in American society -- most of them individuals of no specific group -- who are routinely abused, and denied their basic human rights by various law enforcement organizations and government agencies. Be they black, white, asian, hispanic, middle eastern, gay, straight, religious, athiest, or whatever.

The primary dysfunction is the denial of the individual in this nation. And this denial places all Americans at risk of becoming the next victim of a government, quite obviously, out of control.

The problem with the subject of male homosexuality within contemporary American society is that everbody but Elvis appears to have an opinion as to what these men's rights and responsibilities are; regardless of the fact that the majority of Americans are never, actually, directly affected by male homosexual behavior.

There are females with an opinion, unattractive and obese men with an opinion, politicians, special interest groups, human rights organizations, and any number of other literal "outsiders" whom are incessently brow beating the primary victims of homosexual males with a protagonist plethora of boisterously bombastic, and nearsighted, opinions which invariably ignore the rights of any actual vested party to the opposition.

While it is certainly true that all people in a society are affected by male homosexuality - and many of them negatively so - the fact is that those whom are primarily affected are young and adolescent boys, and attractive men. And the manifestations of injuries caused them are as diverse as the people damaged.

America is a horrifying place for an intelligent, attractive - heterosexual - single man to live in these days. There is almost nobody worth talking to, or hanging-out with. The adult males who aren't idiots or homosexuals are either married or in a serioius relationship, and thus, while they may not be ogling your noodle in the restroom, are generally intolerably ignorant and boring, regardless of their mental capacity.

Moreover, if an adult male is particularly interesting and youthful to the eye, the chances of any man treating him with reasonable regard is extremely slim. And the behaviors exibited by homosexuals are vampish, stealthy and vicious. Nearly inhumane in their perversely sexual nature, wherein the object of affection becomes entirely obscured by obsessive, deviant desires.

As for the subject of pedophilia and the existence of organizations such as NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) -- which actually exists regardless of the fact that it is unconstitutional -- there does not appear to be any lobbyists, or their political counterparts, who give a rat crap about the kids or the young and impressionable. At least not enough to actually protect their interests by staying out of the "same-sex marriage" debate. Or protecting child sovereignty by restricting adoption to qualifying, safe households with both a male and female parent. Or prohibiting the funding of abortions with federal and state monies -- i.e. tax dollars of even those whom act sexually responsible, and do not engage in killing babies, nor agree with those who do.

America's children are first to be dragged into the epicenter of the fracturing grounds of obscenity, slipping through the cracks of this nation's foundation as the documents which bind and secure it are distorted and denied by a bloated and blustering percentage of political hacks. And now the primary perpetrators of shameless perversion are being allowed to play "house" with America's homes. Pretending to marry eachother, and adopting young lives whom are not in any way able to give informed consent, as they are relegated to veritable guinea pigs of impetuous idealism in the laboratories of mad sociology.

Likely, these bright-eyed national resources are so often neglected and marginalized by the Washington "Pansy Politics" machine for the simple fact that they are mostly silent victims whom typically are too young to legally vote. And rarely are politicians noted for their generosity and honor. Excepting, of course, those very-few, staunchly-egalitarian and reliable statesmen such as Ron Paul. A man who does not merely go-around kissing babies for cameras, he is an obstetrician who has delivered many of them.

It really is high-time that this nation, as a whole, begins to actually treat children with the respect and dignity they deserve. But, unfortunately, that conversation cannot even be engaged until the majority of men and women confine their social skills to building respectable and functional relationships on a regular basis, and quit lying to their children...about anything!

Further complicating matters in this veritable "who's who" of tabu is the fact that far too many Americans find it fascinating to precociously indemnify even the worst of homosexual depravity by claiming that heterosexuals also abuse children, rape and kill each other, idefensibly pronouncing homosexuals somehow equally qualified to procure primary status within society.

However, the fact is that regardless of the quid pro quo of animosity and abuse that occurs exclusively between males and females in this society, there is no reciprocal blame or behavior, whatsoever present between adult males of diverging moral conduct.

Heterosexual men and women, both, are equally responsible for the despicable debacle sex has become in this nation. The majority of adults treat sexual intercourse as if it were a carnival ride, lining up like juveniles at the barker's belt.

Few Americans -- heterosexual or homosexual -- have any real respect for the act of procreation in its literal sense, and even less for the spark of life, as so many callous deviants argue it reasonable to circumvent, manipulate, debase and destroy it on a regular basis.

However, much unlike the "war of the sexes", there is no equal perversion occurring between homosexual males and heterosexual males. Heterosexual males whom become the focus of homosexual males' salacious interests are not in any way contributing to the devolving, predatory environment these deviants typically cultivate. And are rarely, if ever, anything but stalked, spied on, flashed, attacked, manipulated, and generally treated like crap by carnal creeps of their own gender.

It is truly a nauseating realm of twisted torment to be the object of sexual obsession and repression by both genders in America, suffocating in a cesspool of indiscriminate denial and neglect, gawked at and mocked by blind passion that renders the few of conscionable character socially invisible to an empire of eyes.

The rights of the individual are placed in imminent peril by special interests when people are granted rights based on any choice, whether it be sexual orientation, political affiliation, religious belief or personal determination.

Homosexually behaving persons are no more or less entitled to their right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" than anyone else. Inalienable rights are equally afforded or they would not be inlienable.

However, homosexuals are being allowed to encroach upon "life" in their open denial of the crucial elements of gender relations and procreation, defiling the institution of Marriage. Upon "liberty" in their constant clawing at social real estate, swearing to destroy it rather than lose it as they grope gyrating genitalia in parades celebrating their choice to flamboyantly flaut natural law. And upon "the pursuit of happiness" in that they have certainly done everything they felt they could get-away-with in making this author's life as miserable as inhumanely possible.

Moreover, the "gay" group is no less a religious one than is Christianity or Catholocism. They are merely differing doctrines of an identical structure, based entirely on belief rather than on "those truths we find to be self evident."

How unremarkable that yet another group of sterilized progressives, weaving a web of distorted perception, emulates and romanticizes the demise of humanity. Just one way in which monotheists and homosexuals are similarly deviant.

But I digress. The pressing point is that regardless of anyone's opinion, this aberrant group -- according to the United States Constitution's very first amendment -- is precluded from official recognition by The State. And thus off-limits to the personal aspirations of any legislative body which seeks to tip the balance of their approval, or peceived equanimity, within society.

One noteable parameter of capacity which characterizes American propriety -- and indemnify's this analysis -- is the very real fact that choices make the person. And thus, people of any free society are gradiently unequal, regardless of the levels of equal opportunity which may exist within their collective environment.

Unless, of course, every person in the nation is forced to think the same way, and believe the same things. Which, as everyone knows, is the complete antithesis of Americanism, and a social fabric far too easily tailored to authoritarian bodies of corruption, oppression and brutality.

The diversity of thought, and thus self-determination of individuals, is the only existential factor capable of preserving the posterity of this species. And no monochrome mentality of any kind possesses the elements of discovery that are so critical to human survival.

No person's rights exist above or beyond their choices, and thus, actively biased persons -- such as homosexuals -- remain legally accountable to anyone they may injure, due to either deviant or negligent behaviors.

Just as a plumber will never be equal to a brain surgeon, in capability or specialty, a homosexual will never be equal to a heterosexual, in capacity or diversity; and a society composed entirely of homosexuals would physically disappear in less than 100 years without medical manipulation.

Furthermore, anyone who disagrees with such discriminations, or finds them offensive, is more than welcome to have their head examined by Roto Rooter. It could only be an improvement.

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.

Joan Rivers, a proponent of Same Sex Marriage - which comes as no surprise actually - has recently uploaded a video to Youtube reprimanding the people of America for exercising their freedom to logically decide for themselves what they will like or not like.

Rivers appears to be unfazed by the fact that the United States Constitution, in every way, protects the efforts of those who currently refuse to condone or support the act of homosexuality. This document is such that it bolsters citizens' protection of the legally binding "agreement of marriage" against those who would use this instrument to further their own personal agenda.

Rivers calls the subject "marriage equality", and say's "come on guys, for goodness sakes, support it."

However, this issue is in no way one of "equality". It is an issue of personal preference, and a clear attempt to exploit the democratic process in this nation, and offer support to legislators for ignoring their oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution by taking sides on an issue that is not their's to decide.

What is it about Rivers that enables her to completely ignore the persistent issue of the ramifications of perverse behavior, and the fact that homosexuality condones a clear violation of nature?

Why does she so easily discount the fact that homosexuality is a refusal to engage the difficult social dichotomy of gender relations, which is a natural behavior that is meant to teach humans the importance of understanding and respecting one's self, and thus others?

Obviously because she is a "homointellectual". Meaning that she intends to ignore the legitimate arguments and rights of the opposition, denigrating their desire to protect the critical elements of life, and instead take the easy route of express protagonism on a "hot button" issue for her own selfish gains.

It is no secret that anyone who opposes just about anything gets consistently attacked and maligned in the media. The honorable dissenter's existence is threatened ad nauseam due to the fact that they do what they do as a selfless contribution to all humanity, and thus rarely garner widespread support from the many protagonists such as selfish celebrities and media whores whom saturate this country, and will support any cause so long as it gains them notoriety form their oft-unethically-motivated fan base.

American society is becoming a rather peculiar production where the average citizen can be seduced into supporting another human being's abdication from reality, gargling the scrotum of a phallic cult of personality, lauding the contributions of self-aggrandizing simpletons based solely on what microcosm of perverse behaviors, or burgeoning social degradations, they will readily embrace.

This is why far too many "artists" (using the term very loosely indeed) are merely plagiarists of the true visionary's role as a creator, relegated to a mere pugnacious reflection of the many hubris and sedentary forces all societies must oppose if they are to survive, or maintain any semblance of order.

Rivers has absolutely no intention of taking the difficult path, guided by logic and fact. Essentially, because it would place her in a realm of honorable discord that may decrease her chances to profit from running her gossipy mouth.

Let's face it, Rivers has never been much more than a social synopsis of a puckish pre-Madonna mentality, airing her ridiculous sentiments for laughs. Now she suddenly wants to be taken seriously? That's comedy!

Regardless, who in their right mind would accept, or act upon, advice from a woman who has screwed up her face with plastic surgery almost to the extent that Michael Jackson did?

Joan Rivers appears to possess about us much intuition and character as a televangelist with a fecal fetish. For a woman like this to be advising an entire nation on how to conduct themselves is scary, to say the least.

It is actually remarkable that Rivers is still offering her gravelly, nasal admonitions to what should, at this point, be a society that has found the sense to tell her to put a cork in it.

However, those who wish to force an entire nation to support, and/or condone, their personal deviant behaviors generally don't give a rip who is speaking on their behalf - or even if what they are saying makes any sense at all - just so long as it is in favor of them being allowed to demand everybody sniff their dirty laundry and claim it smells like cherry pie.

Which is just another sign that the Same Sex Marriage issue rides a gratuitous gravy train, grinding down the rails of reality to the spikes and attempting to jump to an idealistic track that boasts a long record of persistent disrespect for the natural order of human relations.

The United States Constitution is explicit in its preservation of Universal Human Rights. And according to the Constitution the only valid laws are those which are based on "evidence" that prove them essential statutes required to protect and preserve the interests of the entire society, while simultaneously precluding any recognition of a specific group or individual.

First of all, it must be clearly understood that there is no such thing as a "homosexual" within the human species. This is a misnomer that intends to infer an identity on a behavior, and it does not actually exist. Humanity is a species of heterosexuals, but there are certainly those who insist on engaging in homosexual acts.

This means that one's "gay rights" cannot be protected, since they do not exist. And the government is not in the business of "granting" rights, it can only protect them. Granting people "gay rights" is the recognition by government of a doctrine or belief structure, which is essentially a religion. And the first amendment prohibit's the government from establishing laws that recognize any belief structure.

The government cannot recognize rights based solely on a person's choice to engage in any action. Laws are based on human rights, and can only protect people from abuse and oppression. They cannot be used as mechanisms to promote or support people, or their personal choices or desires.

Simply the fact that some people choose to engage in deviant sexual behaviors does not suddenly afford them rights that then exist in contrast to the protection of all citizens. There are no inalienable rights granted to specific groups or individuals. The only inalienable human rights are those that expressly protect all individuals equally.

Inalienable rights are existential - meaning that they are not granted by anyone, but are inherent within the species, and must be recognized and respected. They are protected in order to prevent abuse of all persons, not simply one group or one specific person over another.

Conversely, if those who engage in homosexuality are given their own special set of rules and rights to protect their choice, then they are enabled with onerous powers which can easily be abused as expressly exclusionary mechanisms of a pervasively perverse and destructive form.

Gay rights are such that they require a group-mentality be promoted by an act of law, and is just the sort of Nazi-type, stylized moiety that this country was founded to protect people from.

The recognition of homosexuality under the law enables it to become a repressive mechanism that has already begun to exude an exclusionary sentiment of retribution where people are routinely punished in the media, and denied any number of jobs and/or meritorious rewards simply for standing by their morals, and refusing to support the act of homosexuality.

Opponents of Same Sex Marriage are not demanding their own personally styled rights be recognized, or seeking to promote anything other than humanity in general. Yet they are targeted as intolerant, ignorant or bigoted on a regular basis by those who are actually the bigoted ones.

They are constantly attacked and maligned for their conscionable contributions to society, excoriated by those who are attempting to promote only their own personal agendas, or seeking public praise from an extremely unethical demographic that is generally offering a very conditional type of support, out of mere self preservation.

What is unacceptable in the argument for gay rights is that proponents of Same Sex Marriage are demanding that, for the sake of a personal preference, the entire society be prohibited from expressing itself. They claim that the rights of those who engage in homosexual acts are being violated simply because the majority of the nation's logical citizens naturally repudiate deviant behaviors.

There must be some reconciliation for the fact that those who engage in homosexual acts are consistently attempting to debase the precious realm of procreation in their bid for an environment where people are denied their inalienable right to express support for moral behavior by refusing to condone immoral behavior.

How can anyone support the proponents of Same Sex Marriage when it can be proven that they incessantly refuse to view the subject from a logical standpoint because it shows them to be attempting to impede humanity's natural propensity to act in preservation of itself?

This only proves that these protagonists realize they are pushing a much less than legitimate agenda. Their primary concern is a selfish one. There only concern is "what can be gained from prevailing in the present?" And to hell with the possibility that future generations will be subject to increasing civil unrest, and attacks on the very foundations of all humanity, in a post same sex marriage society.

Gays and lesbians are even routinely abusing the legislative process in ways that show them to be just as corrupt as many of the nation's most underhanded and personally motivated politicians who misuse their authority for personal gains.

The MTPC (Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition) is one such populated entity. The organization's website even proudly displays its collective subversion of the legislative processin the state, as it openly lauds various underhanded political tactics its members have stooped to after several failed attempts to get forced recognition - and support - of Transgender issues entered into law.

In a section titled "History of Transgender Equal Rights Legislation" it speaks of the organization's strategy of changing the name of a transgender bill from "An act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes" to "An Act Relative to Transgender Equal Rights" after failing, in late April, 2010, to sneak it past the people as "amendment #274" where they attached it to the House Budget Bill. The site reports that "this method of passage was not acted upon." The latter bill is being re-submitted in 2011.

The bill, HR1722, is actually full of unconstitutional requests and mandates. Such as undermining the democratic process with requirements that Transgender people be placed in positions of authority, enforcement, assessment and advisory. This type of incongruent representation is not only an extremely inhospitable and discriminatory commission that this nation was founded to impede, it is expressly illegal.

To demand that the leadership of the nation be populated with appointees that are intended to support one specific demographic is a clear step toward the destruction of this country's founding principles. And for any such appointment to also be so unabashedly opposed to heterosexuality, which supports this entire species, is an odious move to render humanity extinct.

Why have animals survived and evolved on this planet for millions of years? Because they have never been subjected to the destructive forces of ignorant attacks on heterosexual behavior. Even cataclysmic events and constant predators have not been able to wipe out these creatures, and primarily because they always follow the rule of "opposites attract" regardless of how difficult it may seem at times.

On the contrary, humans - whom the Universe has granted the opportunity to prove themselves capable of making choices - are being bombarded by a minority of sexually oppressive perverts whom have demanded that they be allowed to force entire nations of people to ignore the truth that these peoples' behaviors are inherently destructive to the species overall social spectrum. And, furthermore, be forced to allow them to encroach on the sacred institution of marriage and sully it with an action tantamount to turning an accredited University into a brothel.

The institution of marriage was explicitly constructed as a means of supporting and condoning conscientious behaviors, amid responsible agreements between two expressly opposing, but complimentary forces of creation. Thereby crafting a mechanism that has enabled humanity to hone its ability to thrive in realms that can often present as largely inhospitable.

Marriage has been both abused and subjected maliging and attack by all manner of scurrilous people and organizations almost since its inception, and it is likely that homosexuals will not be the last aberrant group to attempt to deconstruct what has become the epitome of righteous edifice among all conscionable and upstanding human beings on this planet.

However, the unequivocal truth is that homosexuals will never possess the tenacity and strength that grows daily within any resolute heterosexual, and thus their efforts will one day become just another social stumbling block that is eventually consigned to the pages of historic mistakes that soil the tome of human history.

References:

Joan Rivers Youtube video @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTt5on0HFZI

MTPC website @ http://www.masstpc.org/legislation/index.shtml

In a land where freedom and basic inalienable rights are the definitive monikers of American society, one cannot ignore the fact that some people still find themselves languishing in an environment that is inhospitable to them.

Expressing one's beliefs through freedom of speech or self determination can, in many cases, reduce one's opportunities, or set their personal aspirations out of reach.

Often, the controversial figure finds their self, and their right to self determination, under attack by the very thing that is expect to protect them from discrimination.

In America the system is such that it can create perceived inequities for those who are convinced that the promise of equality grants them the right to demand that others accept, and even support, their personal choices.

The United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, while certainly documents that guarantee freedom and inalienable rights to each and every citizen individually, were primarily drafted as written mechanisms which could be expected to direct and protect the nation as a whole.

These documents are declarations of liberty and autonomy that are said to be sustained by truths that are found "to be self evident", and they do not exist as personal beliefs or individual assessments of opinion.

The enumerated protections within the Constitution, and which are present in the Bill of Rights, are not those which can be invoked by an individual without it be shown that any such invocation is concordant with the most important facet of the promise of freedom inured by these documents: that no individual's rights shall ever be allowed to either directly or indirectly infringe upon, or promote an environment that is found to infringe upon, another's inalienable right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

In the realm of Civil Rights, any laws intended to further this bill must be confined to those which are found to protect all citizens equally. To be clear, any prohibition of discrimination against any one person must, in turn, provide equal protection for all people or it is not legally binding under the Constitution

Laws enacted to protect a persons rights based on gender or race are those which satisfy this requirement, and are such that they prohibit discrimination against, or exclusions of, persons based on defining human characteristics that cannot be naturally altered.

Conversely, laws which are enacted to protect a persons rights based solely on their choice to engage in homosexuality do not contain this required element. The Constitution only prohibit's acts which can be shown to infringe upon the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that can be experienced by all persons equally. And this basic tenet could actually cause the law to sway more decisively in favor of prohibiting homosexuality if, and when, any such acts be determined socially regressive to a demonstrable degree.

However, the fight to protect homosexuals from abuse and violence is just one of many social issues that require clear boundaries be defined, based on Constitutional values, in order to prevent the resulting legislative measures from creating an equally repressive environment of unjustifiable bias against a new group.

There have been various backlashes experienced by numerous people in America as a result of Civil Rights laws that are designed to protect against racial and gender discrimination, but are sometimes misused or redefined to justify furthering discrimination in the workplace.

As for the subject of racial equality, the common belief is that Civil Rights laws are basically necessary to prevent discrimination against members of specific races whom were oppressed and exploited in the past.

However, simply the fact that the need for racial equality was determined to be a "self evident" truth during a time in American history when laws were necessary to emancipate and protect minority groups, does not constrain the issue to a realm of bias that favor's those races, or any particular race.

The right to racial equality extends just as openly to white people - whom are generally believed, however unwittingly, to be members of a privileged group - as it does to black people, whom are often considered - again, however unwittingly - to be members of an underprivileged group.

Furthermore, a person's nationality has also been found to play a significant role in determining one's ability to exist equitably as part of even their own racial group, and thus has been determined to be a proponent of human distinction that must also be Constitutionally protected from discrimination.

As for the never ending "battle of the sexes" pervading every society, the need for humans to cohabitate and collaborate within an environment that often requires either gender to assume roles that appear beyond their prospective capabilities - largely based on traditional ideology - has required laws that respect and promote gender equality, thereby cultivating an atmosphere which respects and rewards males and females equally.

Recognizing women's right to vote, and protecting their right to choose where they work are not the only reason there are laws against gender bias. It is just as socially destructive and demoralizing to discriminate against men, as it is to discriminate against women.

There are exceptions, of course. Such as gender discrimination that is reserved to actions which seek to protect that which is not shared equally between the sexes. Such as legislation aimed at protecting pregnant women from discrimination in the workplace. The fact that women are designed to nurture a fetus, and therefore retain specific authority as to sexual consent, including choosing whether or not they will become pregnant, laws are necessary to prevent discrimination against them based on their choice, or the results of such a choice.

Moreover, rape is not only illegal and abhorrent in every context, it is highly unconstitutional, since no woman can be legally impregnated against her will, or be forced to abort a pregnancy.

What Constitutes a Legitimate Individual Right

Primarily, any legitimate individual right is that which can be invoked by any person, at any time, with the same level of effective protection against whatever abuse that right can reasonably be expected to prohibit; regardless of race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or disability.

As pertains the actual reasoning behind the creation of any and all individual rights outlined in the United States Constitution - regardless of the specific nature of a particular inequity, or any personal perspective upon which it may evolve - they are all simulative statutes of governance over personal autonomy that exude results which are eventually felt by the entire society. And this or any other nation is held to dire consequences should any law be enacted which shall deny any right that is found to be "self evident", as this is a clear denial of the rights of all persons.

Logically, this must also Include protection of the rights of those things on the planet that are found to cohabitate within, and contribute to, the environment that humans now find themselves a part of.

The recognition that each and every individual contribution within a society is inexorably reflected upon the entire sociological structure is why treason is found to be such an egregious crime, thus warranting severe penalties. This type of personalized betrayal exists in a realm that is, without exception, an attack on the very structure of an entire nation, and thus is an attack on all who pledge their allegiance to it. Furthermore, Congress is the only entity granted the Constutional authority to define treason.

How Gay Rights Fail to Satisfy the Requirements of a Legitimate Individual Right

The statutory mechanisms created to protect against racial and gender discrimation satisfy, in every way, the parameters of evidence - as defined by those things which can be empirically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And they have been shown to extend equitably across all relevant boundaries known to exist within the human social structure.

Conversely, laws designed to protect and promote homosexuality do not cross all social boundaries, or even all human boundaries, equitably. Neither does homosexuality exude any broad inference toward the manifestation, or reflection, of a truth that is found to be "self evident". Gay Rights do not contain the critical element of "commonality" required when enacting laws that protect the rights of all citizens within a society, and certainly not in the interest of social equality.

Gay Rights are a demand for personal privileges that do not extend to all persons. They exist as a bias for one very specific group only. And this group exists in utter contrast to the basic social mechanism of human survival: heterosexuals.

Furthermore, most homosexuals often display complete disregard for basic human design functions, of which no person can logically deny or defy without admitting that there could exist, as a result, repercussions of a particularly odious nature.

Regardless of the fact that many proponents of homosexuality argue that procreation is a negligible concern, there is not one human being on this planet who can conclusively determine that any such clear violation of natural human functions will not, at some point in the future, present mankind with a crisis that will be unmanageable due to recidivist genomic factors that could manifest in response to excessive repression by a homosexual majority. Especially considering that some may find it conscionable to tip the debate in their favor through genetic manipulation.

The Dangers of Preferential Rights That are Not Shared by All Citizens

Preferential rights are those rights which are found only to be specific to one group of people, or one specific classification of individual. Such as a homosexual person, or a rich person, or even a specific ethnicity such as a white person, or a black person.

These laws do not exist in compliance with the basic design function parameters of human beings. But instead are typically concocted by various religious groups whom follow a doctrine that is solely based on the allocation of rights as set out by the teachings reported to have been given them by their god.

Refusing to structure laws in strict compliance with the basic design function parameters of the human species sets the stage for a vast array of unsustainable, unmanageable and increasingly destructive mechanisms of social interaction that will manifest escalating conflicts which could often culminate in naked aggression, either within the society, and on the scale of a full fledged civil war. Or against another society, again to the extreme manifestation of full scale war.

Technology is advancing at an exponential rate. And the relevance of natural, human biological functions will become expressly more profound as the envelope is pushed to its limits. And there will certainly be pivotal moments in the future of mankind, where choosing facts over factions will resoundingly decide the fates of millions.

It can be clearly proven that the dual nature that balances the forces of this Universe, and the cyclic effects determined by the attraction of opposites, is the primary mechanism which has secured the future of humanity, and enabled the evolution of the species to occur along a fine line of the divine cosmic schematic.

Historical events, and scientific analyses, have both shown that any dictatorial, personally biased, mono-elective, or one-sided approach to just about anything has inexorably doomed such respective structure, and its confluent constituents, to catastrophic consequences.

The divergent realm of heterosexuality is not merely reserved to the creation of another human life, but rather is the critical, social dichotomy of complimentary, opposing forces which drives the species to evolve upon a trajectory that requires cooperation with a known opposite. Thereby pushing the natural human survival instinct into accord with elements of personal austerity that teaches humanity to seek the promotion of others as a means of sustainability, and indelibly employing any number of the many alternatives that would otherwise have gone unnoticed.

There will always be an insufficient number of finite variances available to that which is confined to a single, self-styled mode of operation. Homo, or mono, structures are absent the stringent parallax that promotes a viewpoint capable of recognizing redundant components necessary to prevent utter annihilation should any critical portion of such structure fail to perform.

Healthy, functional and adroit societies require persons that are willing and able to engage, at all levels, the divergently-cooperative structures of co-committed opposites. And forgo the temptation to manipulate the process through self-gratifying, deviant behaviors that are easily maintained due to guaranteed conviviality's, such as the physical and emotional relationship between homosexuals.

In large part, gay rights activist are not seeking the attraction of opposites, nor voicing concerns for the nation as a whole as pertains the need to "cooperate" with expected opposing forces.

Proponents of homosexuality also consistently take the position that a refusal to engage the opposite sex - as an equal gender, wholly legitimate and necessary in all facets, and on all levels of human interaction - carries with it no negative consequences. And more often than not, homosexuals will refuse to allow themselves to show any concern for such negative effects even when they are shown to be apparent.

Gay rights activists typically stand behind statements of personal determination such as "we will continue to fight for what we believe in" as in a recent video where protesters were upset that the Tennessee Senate passed Bill SB49, a law prohibiting homosexuality to be taught as part of the curriculum in sex education courses in that state's public schools.

How Government is Overstepping its Constitutional Bounds in the Interest of Promoting Gay Rights

The government's push for political correctness in speech, and Gay rights, as a part of legislation expected to promote acceptance of homosexuality, is such that it expresses the government's intent to show clear favoritism, and even go so far as to recognize an established belief structure that is tantamount to a religion.

This is a clear violation of the first amendment, wherein it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Homosexuality is by-and-large an "establishment of religion" in that it exists in practice alone, and is based solely on a doctrine bound to a belief, rather than based on truths that are found to be "self evident".

Congress is not granted the authority, under the Constitution, to either condone or condemn the act of homosexuality. Neither can the government prohibit anyone from engaging in either. If one is unwilling to support or condone the act of homosexuality in any way, then they have the right to do so. Even if that means denying a person a job based on the fact that they are homosexual.

Neither does the government possess the authority to determine, or delineate, what citizens will accept as proper behavior within the society. Nor do they have the right to tell people what to like or not like.

However, regardless of what the Constitution commands legislator to do, it is becoming more and more common to find government promoting an environment that favors the desires of homosexuals over the rights of the society as a whole. And at times, outright demanding that homosexuality be lauded as an equally legitimate alternative to heterosexuality. Some federal legislators are attempting to promote the teaching of homosexual behaviors in public schools, and they have no constitutional right to do anything of the sort.

Legislators, fueled by a desire to win votes by any means possible - and often spurred by efforts to protect their own lifestyles, as they expose themselves, choosing to be openly homosexual - are even going so far as to attempt to debase the very foundation of marriage by stripping it of its core facilitation wherein it is designed to promote and protect the rights of children - which can only be produced through a heterosexual union - under the auspices of the truth "found to be self evident" throughout history, wherein familial posterity has been an essential facet of human survival.

As for the courts, far too many legal sophists - with their perverse definition of freedom - are attempting to redefine the law by changing the meaning of words to support whatever position their clients are determined to force upon the public at large. And they are, far too often, being allowed to ignore the "evidence", and persuade magistrates - who rule absent the Constitutionally required element of prudence, through peer review - to offer mere "judicial opinions" that exude a clear bias where none otherwise could, would, or should, exist.

The Constitution of the United States is such that it provides for the prohibition of acts that are found to be those which abuse, exploit, debase or in any way degrade one's ability to exist, and are written in clear language that is expressly simple in its determinations and definitions, and based on nothing more than that which is found to be "self evident"; nothing more, nothing less.

Therefore, when intending to elucidate the mind-frame in which the rights set-out in the Constitution were conceived, and the manner in which they were composed, all inferences much naturally be bound to extrusions of like evidence. And the unfortunate fact is that homosexuality - according to all the truths that humans "find to be self evident" - exists as an entirely deviant behavior that is not constrained by any of the "checks and balances" this species has come to understand are crucial to properly disseminating the currency of human social interaction, and setting limits that can protect the species from aberrant mechanisms with the capability of catastrophically destabilize the structure of civilization.

What is imperative is for Americans to fully analyze each and every facet of homosexuality, and conclusively determine the negative effects it has, and can have, on all parts of the society. The conversation on the subject of homosexuality, gay rights and gay marriage must progress logically, directed by stringent objectivity, absent any influence by individual preference if America has any expectation of creating a lasting respect of each and every citizen who calls this nation home.

The future is not a place which has ever been hospitable to anyone who has dared enter its reticular realms through reciprocal portals that were unlocked by keys fashioned with materials which are absent the elemental "truths we find to be self evident".

Reference:

Coming Out video, 22 May 2011; nytimes.com @ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/23/us/20110523-coming-out.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1