Gay Marriage; The Supreme Court; The New Hadrian’s Wall-A More Perfect Disunion

by Robert L. Cheney Jr. –

In 122 A.D., it was the Roman Emperor (a.k.a. Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus Augustus, 76-138 A.D.), who in order to combat, tax and regulate the English/Scottish barbarians, constructed one of the great wonders of the ancient world: Hadrian’s Wall.  This wall stretched seventy-two (72) miles from the Irish Sea at Solway Firth in the west to the eastern shore of England at Tyne.  Hadrian’s wall was built by Rome in which to separate out the encroaching tribal conflicts which came from the barbarian north, from the more “Roman occupied” and controlled ‘civilized’ south.[1]

Although it was one of the great wonders of the ancient world, the wall became a silent and ever-prescient reminder to the Anglo-Saxon indigenous peoples, of the great and omniscient power which occupied them.  Rome’s ever-growing attempts to subdue, control, occupy and even own Britain, solidified that island’s attempts to throw off that unwanted occupation and to become free.  This wall, which was a symbol of Rome’s awesome power, lasted from its inception 122 A.D. until approximately 410 AD, when Rome finally decided to withdraw from Britain.

Whilst both Hadrians’ (and the later built Antonine) wall, never did serve their purpose of conquering the northern tribes, it did however; facilitate the occupying Romans, by both impeding the freedom and travel of the ancient Britain’s, as well as regulating and controlling them. It also coincidentally served as a means of taxation, which was a great benefit to Rome itself.  The existence of the wall, and the mere fact of it just being there, was also a great burden and constant oppression to the ancient Britain’s, whom opposed Roman occupation and chose instead; to be free:

The impact of the intrusion of an alien culture upon a failing culture is similar to a parasitic attack suffered by any failing creature. Though the citizens of a declining community are slowly losing their attachments to their own community, they still feel some sense of obligation towards it. It is their community, full of their own kind, which is their tribe, so regardless of their growing indifference to their society’s tradition, they still feel a concern for its welfare. Whereas migrants from alien cultures have no such concerns; they are among strangers with a different culture. These invaders have not come to improve their host’s society, but [rather] their own, at the expense of their host. Hence such invading minority communities are parasites upon their host community.[2]

Presently, the populace of the United States is undergoing a similar silent oppression—by and through out Supreme Court wilful abandonment of the concise rule of law, and replacing it with a new barrier of a more rude and foreign law system, which is dismantling the safety of our laws, our rights, and our freedom’s, with: something else.

There is no more safety in the security of our laws in our current court systems.  There is no more vox populi.  What we now have, (just like the impediment of Hadrian’s Wall), is a new elite foreign law superstructure constructed by our courts, which has subrogated our government institutions, and known controlling legal protocols; in order to inflict a more base, rude and foreign set of laws which do not comport within any free society.  We now see this Hadrian’s Wall bifurcation clearly within the Supreme Court application of anti-law cases which have now come before it.  These two current cases within the supreme court are: i.e. Hollingsworth, et al, v. Perry, et al, [S.Ct. # 12-144, submitted March 23, 2013 (hereinafter Hollingsworth)], and United States v. Windsor, [S.Ct. # 12-307, submitted March 27, 2013 (hereinafter Windsor)].

The fact that these cases were propounded and supported by a very small minority (e.g. an immoral and aberrant minority) does not bode well for this nation upholding any true ‘clear and concise rule of law’ in this matter.  In fact, the last time this type of pre-formative setup was established within our courts to change the law was with the implementation of feminism and especially, the case of Roe v. Wade, 10 U.S. 113 (1973).  They now call that anti-law case decision, as a “Landmark legal decision,” as if it were law.  It is not.[3]  It is the fraudulent change of law, implemented in this country under the cloth and guise of legal procedure.  But it is most assuredly not law.  We are currently being set-up, by forces beyond our control for the very same exact thing in these two contemporary “Gay Rights” cases.  The Supreme Court is going to uphold anti-law, and change, what can only be perceived as violation of law (i.e. Gay and Lesbian criminal activity) into a new “Civil Right” which does not—and more importantly—cannot exist in a modern free society.

More importantly, such changes of law cannot exist in any society based upon the concise rule of law, which these cases are in direct contradistinction of.

First we must consider in this matter: what is the rule of law, regarding gay and lesbian rights?  Is it law?  Is it even a “civil right” as the gays and their supporters want us to believe?

The rule of law in this matter is exemplified under a 1998 Alabama Supreme Court opinion, Ex parte D.W.W., 717 So.2d 793, in which that court found that:   “[C]ontinued exposure” to a mother’s lesbian lifestyle [to her children] constitutes ‘demonstrable harm.’”

 “No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil, and if a person openly engages in such a practice, that fact alone would render him or her an unfit parent.”

“Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one’s ability to describe it. That is enough under the law to allow a court to consider such activity harmful to a child. To declare that homosexuality is harmful is not to make new law but to reaffirm the old; to say that it is not harmful is to experiment with people’s lives, particularly the lives of children.”[4]

The common law, of course, is the law of the land.[5]  It is the unwritten law, the “law that lives in the hearts and minds of men everywhere.”  To change our nations laws from the common law to “something else,” is a change in the written law itself, and is an act of overt treason:

 “But treason is a crime against an entire community, and it is the highest crime that an individual can commit against a community or a body politic, of which he is a member.”  It is therefore, a political offense; and as such, it ever has been and still is to be regarded.

Such being the nature and character of treason, from the principles and structure of American Government, its object is, generally, if not always, a change either in the form of government or the administration of it.”  American State Trials, John D. Lawson, LL.D., St. Louis, 1914, F.H. Thomas Law Publishers, © 1914, Vol. II, p. 53.  Trial of Patrick Blake, 1816, from: American State Trials, John D. Lawson, LL.D., St. Louis, 1914, F.H. Thomas Law Publishers, © 1914, Vol. II, p. 53.  [See also 18 USC 2381 TREASON, and 18 USC 2382 Misprision of Treason].

Our laws, support that our Citizens have both a fundamental right to conscience as well as the right of morality.  Let’s quickly define these terms, under the Amendment the First, to the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791:

 CONSCIENCE.  The moral sense; the faculty of judging the moral qualities of actions, or of discriminating between right and wrong; particularly applied to one’s perception and judgment of the moral qualifies of his own conduct, but in a wider sense, denoting a similar application of the standards of morality to the acts of others.  The sense of right and wrong inherent in every person by virtue of his existence as a social entity; good conscience being a synonym of equity.  Van Graafieland v. Wright, 286 Mo. 414, 228 S.W. 465, 469.  In law, especially the moral rule which requires probity, justice, and honest dealing between man and man, as when we say that a bargain is “against conscience” or “unconscionable,” or that the price paid for property at a forced sale was so inadequate as to “shock the conscience.”  This is also the meaning of the term as applied to the jurisdiction and principles of decision of courts of chancery, as in saying that such a court is a “court of conscience,” that it proceeds “according to conscience,” or that it has cognizance of “matters of conscience.”  See 3 Bl.Comm. 47-56; People v. Stewart, 7 Cal. 143; Miller v. Miller, 187 Pa. 572, 41 A. 277.  [From:  Black’s Law Dictionary, ã 1968, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., p. 376.]

See also:

 MORAL.  1.  Pertaining or relating to the conscience or moral sense or to the general principles of right conduct.  2.  Cognizable or enforceable only by the conscience or by the principles of right conduct, as distinguished from positive law.   3.  Depending upon or resulting from probability; raising a belief or conviction in the mind independent of strict or logical proof.   4.  Involving or affecting the moral sense; as in the phrase “moral insanity.”   Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, ã 1933, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minn., p. 1204   [See also: POSITIVE LAW.  Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society.  “A ‘law ,’ in the sense in which that term is employed is jurisprudence, is enforced by a sovereign political authority.  It  is thus distinguished not only from all rules which, like the principles of morality and the so-called laws of honor and of fashion, are enforced by an indeterminate authority, but also from all rules enforced by a determinate authority which is either, on the one hand, super human, or, on the other hand, politically subordinate.  In order to emphasize the fact that  “laws,” in the strict sense of the term, are thus authoritatively imposed, they are described as positive laws.” Holl. Jur. 37. Id. p. 1381.]

Now we must consider: do American Citizens have the right to assert both these established precepts?

That this governments’ rule of law was established at the beginning of this country’s formation, until the present date.  The fact of God and the good and wholesome laws as established throughout the Christian faith, are the morality and the rule of decision in every state of the union throughout the United States of America.[6]

First, let us prove that this is a Christian nation, with Christian laws, from the incept of this nation to the present date:

1.1.0        It is a fact, that all State of California, and other subsequent state Constitutions, do in fact, invoke God.[7]

1.2.0        FACT:  That the foundation of the landmass called “America” and/or the “United States,” and/or the “United States of America,” was established, ordained, and maintained under the rule of Almighty God as established and recognized under the God of Abraham and Moses, in both the Christian and Jewish faiths.

a.)                      The Mayflower Compact, was in fact, invoked “In the name of God, Amen.”[8]

b.)                      It is a fact, that the The First Charter of Virginia; dated April 10, 1606; did also invoke the word of God and his profound authority within that instrument as its foundational authority; and,

c.)                      Worshiping God has been viewed by all Americans, in all states, under all constitutions, is a vested property right;[9] and,

d.)                      It is also a fact, that The Second Charter of Virginia; dated May 23, 1609 did also invoke the word of God and his profound authority within that instrument as its foundational authority; and,

e.)                      It is also a fact, that The Third Charter of Virginia; dated March 12, 1611 did also invoke the word of God and his profound authority within that instrument as its foundational authority; and,

f.)                        It is also a fact, that The Charter of New England, dated 1620 did also invoke the word of God and his profound authority within that instrument as its foundational authority; and,

g.)                      It is a fact, that  A Grant of the Province of Maine to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John Mason, esq., 10th of August, 1622 did also invoke the word of God and his profound authority within that instrument as its foundational authority; and,

h.)                      It is a fact,  that a Grant of the Province of New Hampshire to Mr. Mason, 22 April 1635 did also invoke the word of God and his profound authority within that instrument as its foundational authority; and,

i.)                        It is a fact, that Land Patent: Grant to the PROVINCE OF MAINE, 1664 did in fact, invoke the authority of God within that instrument, as its foundational authority; and,

j.)                        It is also a fact, that the Land Grant given to New Caesarea, (or New Jersey), did also invoke the word and authority of God within that instrument as its foundational authority; and,

k.)                      It is also a fact, that the Charter of Georgia, established in 1732 did also invoke the word of God and his profound authority within that instrument as its foundational authority; and,

l.)                        That all such other following Companies and Charters, did continue the Christian ethic and establishments throughout this nation,[10] and whereby;

1.3.0              Said Royal Charters, Companies and Proclamations, did begat a Christian peoples living upon said landmass, and thereby, it is a fact, that said peoples, did in fact, establish organic state Constitutions; and,

1.4.0              That it is a fact, that said original Thirteen Colonies, did establish state Constitutions, which did invoke and pray for the blessings of Almighty God[11] and his concomitant authority within the good and wholesome laws of said instruments; and,

1.5.0              It is a fact, that said original Thirteen Colonies,[12] did in fact begat a DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, established in Congress, at New York, October 19th, 1765, which did invoke the Protestant establishment and the common law;[13]

 “Common law.” The law of England is divided, as hath beene said before, into three parts; 1, the common law, which is the most generall and ancient law of the realme, of part whereof Littleton wrote; 2, statutes or acts of parliament; and 3, particular customes (whereof Littleton also maketh some mention). I say particular, for if it be the generall custome of the realme, it is part of the common law. The common law has no controler in any part of it, but the high court of parliament; and if it be not abrogated or altered by parliament, it remains still, as Littleton here saith. The common law appeareth in the statute of Magna Charta[14] and other statutes (which for the most part are affirmations of the common law) in the original writs, in judiciall records, and in our bookes of termes and yeares. Section 115b.[15]

1.6.0              It is a fact, that said original Thirteen Colonies did in fact, begat yet another DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, established in Congress, at Philadelphia, October 14, 1774 which did animadvert the establishment causes for a free and independent peoples; and,

1.7.0              It is a fact, that said original Thirteen Colonies, did in fact, create the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, adopted in Congress, July 4, 1776 and which did again invoke same under “the laws of nature” and “nature’s God;” and,

1.8.0              It is a fact, that invoke under our Christian Lord, ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, which did style an inseparable part of union of several states styled as: “The United States of America.” Signed in witness thereof, done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand and seven hundred and seventy-eight, and in the third year of independence of America; and,

1.9.0              It is a fact, that the establishment of these free Christian peoples, joined as one peoples within a union of several states, did in fact, draw up a document entitled the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,[16] in convention on September 17, 1787 and Amended with the first ten amendments on December 15, 1791 et seq.; and,

1.10.0          It is a fact, that this union was passed as a quorum of the original 13 states within the following order:

 a.)                STATE OF DELAWARE                    December 7, 1787

b.)                STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA           December 12, 1787

c.)                STATE OF NEW JERSEY                  December 18, 1787

d.)                STATE OF GEORGIA                        January 2, 1788

e.)                STATE OF CONNECTICUT             January 9, 1788

f.)                  STATE OF MASSACUSETTS           February 6, 1788

g.)                STATE OF MARYLAND                   April 28, 1788

h.)                STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA       May 23, 1788

i.)                  STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE         June 21, 1788

j.)                  STATE OF VIRGINIA                        June 25, 1788

k.)                STATE OF NEW YORK                    July 26, 1788

l.)                  STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA      November 21, 1788

m.)              STATE OF RHODE ISLAND May 29, 1790[17]

1.11.0          It is a fact, that from March 4, 1791 (STATE OF VERMONT) to August 21, 1959 (STATE OF HAWAII), that each subsequent enrolled state[18] did in fact, join said union of several states clothed under the entitlements and obligations of the United States upon the following general terms and compact:

 a.)    Under the common law;[19] and,

b.)    Upon equal footing and standing with the Original Thirteen Colonies; and,

c.)    Under a Republican form of government; and,

d.)    With full faith and credit to the laws of the other union of several states.

e.)    As an “inseparable part” indivisible part of the United States of America.[20]

1.12.0          It is a fact, that each of these governments, were established on the Lockean principles of Civil Society under the Social Compact, which meant that each that society (or state) was established under God::

 “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him.  This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.  Before any man can be considered a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must also do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority, must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.”[21]

See also:

John Locke agreed with Hobbes on the existence of a social contract but to the contrary contended that humankind is naturally sociable and endowed with the right to personal liberty, the right to work and consequently the right to property, and that the State is formed for the sole purpose of guaranteeing these rights.  Locke said that the State was formed because in nature there was no guarantee to secure these rights.  Similarly, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that humankind was born good and was born happy.  He taught that the social contract was “a postulate of reason” and not an historical fact and explained how it came about:  For an instant, the individuals confer all their rights (natural ones) to the State which thereafter gives them all back (civil rights) with the name changed; by this novation or transformation, the individuals have been assured by the State of those rights by which they already possessed by nature.[22]

1.13.0          Blackstone’s in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, discussed the concomitant obligations of Nations within the Law of Nations to recognize the law of God and to subordinate themselves thereto and not to violate those Christian precepts clearly espoused within the Decalogue of the Holy Bible:

 With regard to the first of these, the declaratory part of the municipal law, this depends not so much upon the law of revelation or of nature as upon the wisdom and will of the legislator. This doctrine, which before was slightly touched, deserves a more particular explication. Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture. Neither do divine or natural duties (such as, for instance, the worship of God, the maintenance of children, and the like) receive any stronger sanction from being also declared to be duties by the law of the land. The case is the same as to crimes and misdemesnors, that are forbidden by the superior laws, and therefore stiled mala in se, such as murder, theft, and perjury; which contract no additional turpitude from being declared unlawful by the inferior legislature. For that legislature in all these cases acts only, as was before observed, in subordination to the great lawgiver, transcribing and publishing his precepts. So that, upon the whole, the declaratory part of the municipal law has no force or operation at all, with regard to actions that are naturally and intrinsically right or wrong.

… This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.

Considering the creator only as a being of infinite power, he was able unquestionably to have prescribed whatever laws he pleased to his creature, man, however unjust or severe. But as be is also a being of infinite wisdom, he has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice, that existed in the nature of things antecedent to any positive precept. These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due; to which three general precepts Justinian[1] has reduced the whole doctrine of law.

… This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

… This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce it’s laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in it’s present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their Intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy; for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former.

But man was formed for society; and, as is demonstrated by the writers on this subject,[2] is neither capable of living alone, nor indeed has the courage to do it. However, as it is impossible for the whole race of mankind to be united in one great society, they must necessarily divide into many; and form separate states, commonwealths and nations, entirely independent of each other, and yet liable to a mutual intercourse. Hence arises a third kind of law, to regulate this mutual intercourse, called “the law of nations:” which, as none of these states will acknowledge a superiority in the other, cannot be dictated by any; but depends entirely upon the rules of natural law, or upon mutual compacts, treaties, leagues, and agreements between these several communities: in the construction also of which compacts we have no other rule to resort to, but the law of nature; being the only one to which all the communities are equally subject: and therefore the civil law[3] very justly observes, that quod naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, vocatur jus gentium.[23]

1.14.0          It is a fact, that our form of government “we the people” are supreme,[24] and we do not give up any of our rights to the general government:[25]  The State of California, also enjoins with Locke in two Code sections which elucidate and codify this fact, in the statutes of the California Government Codes sections 11120 and 54950 which both state:

 “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.  The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.  The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”[26]

1.15.0          Thereby, the “rule of law” for this complete nation, combined together as a union of several states, conjoined as an inseparable part of the United States, as a fundamental law and right, in fact, comes under God as enumerated within the Christian Holy bible under the Ten Commandments:[27]

 He who commands that law should rule may thus be regarded as commanding that God and reason alone should rule; he who commands that a man should rule adds the character of the beast.  Appetite has that character; and high spirit, too, perverts the holders of office, even when they are the best of men.  Law [as the pure voice of God and reason] may thus be defined as “Reason free from all passion.”[28]

See also:

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man.  And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, [and] are superior to it.  Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws.  On the contrary—it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.[29]

1.16.0          That it is a fact, that most of the instrumentality from which these charta’s, constitutions, and laws emanated from, throughout this nation, were that from the power of  being ORDAINED.

 “To institute or establish; to make an ordinance; to enact a constitution or law.  Kepner v. Comm., 40 Pa. 124;  U.S. v. Smith, 4 N.J. Law 38; State v. Dallas City, 72 Or. 337, 143 P. 1127, 1131, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 855.

To confer on a person of the holy orders of priest or deacon. Kibbe v. Antram, 4 Conn. 134.”[30]

1.17.0          American case decision clearly recognizes these facts, and places them on the record:

 “All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered as void.  The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth.  A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us.  All human constitutions which contradict his [God’s] laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey.”  Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109. (1772)

Clearly, just under these principles of law and order, that this Supreme Court does not have the subject-matter jurisdiction; to even consider this case.  However; there are even more glaring reasons why the attempt of this Supreme Court to overturn law and also social policy, asserted by a small, perverse and immoral minority, is in direct counter-distinction to the will of ‘we the people’.

Secondly, we must consider: what is the charge and the duties and responsibilities of the Supreme Court of the United States?

Well, we must remember, that we are a nation of laws, and not of men.  [Reference:  Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) where this maxim was first recorded].  The law of this nation states that there are only three (3) ordinate branches, or departments of government, each which have their own sphere and authority of influence.  This is called Separation of Powers doctrine, and is the organic formation of our government which teaches, that each branch is co-ordinate and equal, but with SEPARATE agency functions, which cannot be over-lapped.

In this separate but equal doctrine, each branch or department of government comes under the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, as so iterated under its Article VI, clauses 2 and 3 “SUPREMACY CLAUSE” approbation.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It is clear and undisputed, that the Supreme Court, (e.g., our ‘one supreme court’ as established within the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791, under Article III, “judicial powers”),[31] only has the power to state what the law is.[32]  It cannot either make law (the Legislative function), nor can it change the law (a power which resides in no branch of government, not even within the people themselves.  [Reference: Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1908) judicial determination to only say what the law is].  The supreme court’s function is the lay the act and/or omission beside the law, and it is only to state what the law is.  That is its only power under ‘judicial powers’.

It is undisputed: that judges cannot either make, nor change the law:

 “…”It is the province of the judiciary to determine what the law is, not what it should be”. U.S. v. Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 1999).

See also:

“The judicial branch has only one duty — to lay the article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statue which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former. . .the only power it [the Court] has. . .is the power of judgment.”  U.S. v. Butler, 297 US (1936)

Within Hollingsworth, in lines 17-25, both Justice SCALIA and Attorney OLSON, involve themselves in a miscegenation of legal semantics and diatribe, which misquotes both the law and their authority:

 MR. OLSON:  “The California Supreme Court, like this Supreme Court, decides what the law is.  The California Supreme Court decided that the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of that California Constitution did not permit excluding gays and lesbians from the right to get married.

JUSTICE SCALIA:  “You—you’ve led me right into a question I was going to ask.  The California Supreme Court decides what the law is.”

This is a rather important discombobulation of legal semantics which draw the line of authority for the Judiciary.  Do they “decide what the law is?” or are they only to “state what the law is?”  Clearly, one reading completely destroys the other’s meaning.  Again, stating for the record, the Judiciary have no determinative, nor declaratory espousing nor interpretative functions of law—again, what their power only encompasses—IS DECLARING, i.e. simply stating what the law is.  If you read case authorities Dickerson and Butler stated above, clearly show the settled law in regards to these semantics.[33]

As we have now clearly established that A.) the law is the Christian law as ingrained in the Holy Bible, and B.)  That the common law incorporates the Christian law and its morality; and C.) That the Supreme Courts’ function is only to state what the law is, we must now turn our attention SOCIAL COMPACT theory in order to understand how our government and its laws work together.

We must look at social compact theory in order to recognize, that there is an ordination to the law: from the highest to the lowest.  If, as Marbury v. Madison, proclaims, that the constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” …it follows that there must be inferior laws to the established ‘highest law’ of the land. Here is the ordination of our laws, from the highest to the lowest:


 In order to understand Social Compact Theory, we must go back to the great founding Fathers’ whom debated this issue, then incorporated it as the fundamental law that led to the formation of constitutional law.

 “Every man being, as has been showed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent.” —John Locke

The fact that humans formed this “Social Compact” society, voluntarily, which gave as its organic basis—the rights of free will and freedom—was a completely new idea to modern man in civilization.  It was the combined efforts of Rousseau, Hobbs, Milton, Locke, and others, who further forged this nascent theory of the Social Compact, each resting on a general principle as explained by Professor W. H. Hutt:[34]

“In Civil Government Locke expounds the Individualistic view of private property, and again lays down the quintessence of Individualism. ‘The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.’ He qualifies his theory of a Social Contract, Compact, or Covenant, by pointing out that ‘men when they [voluntarily] enter into society give up … liberty of a kind; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property,’ the power conferred ‘can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure everyone’s property,’ etc., etc. This artful qualification of the common good, serves as a complete defence of the ‘Glorious Revolution,’ which gave us effective parliamentary government.”

That under Social Compact Theory, it was well-established, that once again, that all laws derive from Natural Law (e.g. “God’s Law”).

“All laws derive their force from the law of nature; and those which do not, are accounted as no laws.”—Fortescue, Jac. Law Dict.

“Laws are arbitrary or positive, and natural; the last of which are essentially just and good, and bind everywhere, and in all places where they are observed. * * * * Those which are natural laws, are from God; but those which are arbitrary, are properly human and positive institutions.”—Selden on Fortescue, C. 17, also Jacob’s Law Dictionary.

“The law of nature is that which God, at man’s creation, infused into him, for his preservation and direction; and this is an eternal law, and may not be changed.”—2 Shep. Abr. 356, also Jac. Law Dict.

See also:

“Justice Ormond, claimed that by this language (9th Amendment) the courts were authorized to declare void any act which was repugnant to natural justice and equity.  Hence, ‘any act of the legislature which violates any of these asserted rights of which entrenches on any of these great principles of civil liberty, or inherent rights of man shall be void.’”  In re Dorsey, 7 Porter (Ala.) 293, 377-378 (1883).[35]

From this, once again, it was shown through Social Compact Theory, that there was a declension of the law, from the highest (God’s Law) to the lowest (Man’s Law).


Highest Law to Lowest Law Chart





Power Who Created?


Stare Decisis basis?


Natural Law [Highest Law]Gods Law (Perfect)





Natural Rights“Blessings” from God





The Common LawThe Law of Highest Reason



Natural Law


The Social CompactBased off of Common Law and Natural Law[36] (de jure)[37]



Common Law/Natural Law



ConstitutionsBased off of Common Law and Bible (de jure)‘We the People’(state Citizens)


Common Law/Natural Law

(Almighty God)


Statute LawBased off of Common Law and Constitution (de jure)


   (state Citizens)


Constitution/Common Law/ Natural Law





Revised StatutesBased off of Statutes(de facto)[39]


(U.S. citizens)


Statutes / Const./Soc. Comp./Comm. Law/and Natural Law


CodesBased off of Statutes and Revised Statutes(de facto)


(U.S. citizens)


Rev. Stats/Statutes/Constitution/Soc. Comp/Comm. Law/ and Natural Law


RulesBased off of Codes and Agency(de facto)


(U.S. citizens)


Codes/Rev. Stats/Stats/Const./Soc. Comp./Comm. Law/and Natural Law


Practice, Policies and ProceduresBased off of the Rules(de facto)




Rules/Rev. Stats/Stats/Const./Soc. Comp./Comm. Law/ and Natural Law


Secret Practices, Policies and Procedures [Lowest Law] TREASON[Unknown](Military)LAW WHICH OVERTURNS ALL NATURAL RIGHTS


  [Zero Estate]





Antithetical to Natural Law

In Opposition to Law

Hillary Clinton’s “Village”


This is the declination of our American laws, as established under our form of Republican form of government.  The supreme court is to abide by this structure, under Social Compact Theory.  The fact of this declination, gives effect to Marbury vs. Madison’s approbation that “The constitution is the supreme law of the land” and that the courts, have ‘judicial discretion’ in which to say what the law is.  This chart shows, the supreme law, and all other subordinate laws, which must square (be in consonance with) the higher law(s) above them.

Using Social Compact Theory, we can readily make a real-life test, as to the Gay and Lesbian’s asseveration that the Gay and Lesbian Civil Right struggle, is exactly like the Black struggle for Civil Rights in the 1950’s and 60’s.  Let us apply Social Compact Theory to their assertion:






We must note for the record, that “Civil Rights,” do not emanate out of the ether.[40]  They must be based on something, or there must be some primary law which espouses and supports them.  In this analysis, we are to take the Gay and Lesbian assertion that “Civil Rights Exist” for them, in the light most favorable to the gay Civil Rights claims.

So in this analysis, we are going to give Liberal Construction, that the government gives every efficacy to the Gay agenda, in order to give them “Gay Civil Rights.”  So in Chart 2.0 (above) under ITEM 1, (next to the Yellow Civil Rights circle), we are going to say “YES:  that Gay Rights exist under Civil Rights Protection.”  To support this claim, we must show that Gay Rights are catalogued somewhere within the declination of rights (from the highest law, to the lowest law in this Social Compact Theory chart).

Starting from the lowest government authority, (the item 2. “Practices, Policies, and Procedures” box in Chart 2.0), we are just going to agree and say YES that government grants Gays their “Civil Rights” here.  But again, Item 2, Practices, Policies, and Procedures, is subordinate to the upper laws, and it must somehow square (or show definitive legal authority) within the Supreme Law of the Land under Marbury v. Madison, so we must go up the declination of laws in order to verify and square that legal authority granted at the Item 2, Practices, Policies and Procedures level, granted by government authority.

So we go up to the next higher ordinate of law, box Item 3., the Government RULES box (which is higher law than Item 2, “Practices, Policies, and Procedures” box).  Well, in adhering to Liberal Construction, we are just going to say the Civil Right exists here, and not show any true legal authority…as we know that it exist somewhere, so we are going to climb up each declination and ordinate of the law to find it.  But again, we are held to the declension of the law, and must go upwards to make sure this Gay Civil Right exists, and squares with the higher law to allow the Gay and Lesbian lifestyle asserted within the “Supreme Law of the Land” under Marbury v. Madison.  So we are compelled to keep on going upwards, to each higher law, which are, in this case, box Item 5. the Revised Statutes (e.g. de facto “man-made” law).[41]  These “Revised Statutes” do not have the proper, or lawful enacting clause, required by the constitution.  Here, once again, giving Liberal Construction to the Gay and Lesbian condition, we are just going to say (and not prove) that the Civil Right exists here, and once again, go upwards to find certified authority for Gay Civil Rights.

Now we are required to go to the lawful Statutes (e.g. de jure law), that does have the proper constitutional enacting clause:[42]We the people gathered in both senate and assembly, hereby do enact as follows:[43] [then the statute is stated on the record and passes as true law].  Once again, keeping with our Liberal Construction attributes, we are just going to say the Gay Civil Right exists here, without proving it, and once again go upwards to higher law.

Then we come to the Constitution itself.  As we know, (such as in Roe v. Wade), there is no constitutional “Gay Civil Right” which can be extruded from constitutional authority.  “Gay Rights,” do not exist.  However, once again; just for the exercise, we are going to imagine that somewhere within the Constitution, it can be somehow construed that there are “Civil Rights” for Gay and Lesbians.

Again, to further prove this under Social Compact Theory, we must go up to the Common Law; Natural Law; and God’s Law upon which this nation is based.  Once crossing that threshold, we clearly see: that Gay and Lesbian rights do not exist there.  If that is in fact, the case: and if we agree that Gay and Lesbian rights do not exist in Items 1, God’s Law; 2, Natural Law, and 3, the Common law (and the concomitant Maxims of Law); then how does it exist anywhere else within the Social Compact purview?!?  If the “Civil Right” does not exist somewhere within the declination of laws; then it cannot magically appear somewhere else.  If the “Civil Right” to be Gay, does not exist under God’s Law, then; it can exist nowhere else within or under our form of law, under our declination of laws as commanded under the dictum of Marbury v. Madison, “Supreme Law of the Land.”

Gay rights, do not in fact, exist under our law or form of government under Social Compact Theory, nor under Natural Law or the Common Law, to wit:

 Conjunctio mariti et faeminae est de jure naturae. The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature.


 To further prove this analysis, we must go where the Gays and Lesbian’s state as a definitive proof as to the existence of their rights—as they point to the past Black Civil Rights struggle, argued and fought for during the 1950s and 1960s.  In order to more definitively prove that Gay’s and Lesbian’s do not have Civil Rights, we will do exactly that, in accordance to their claims.

As seen in the above-mentioned Chart 3.0, that we will record the declination of law for Black persons under Social Compact Theory, this time giving the Black struggle for Civil Rights—STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF LAW consideration.  In other words, we will try like dickens, to see that Black Civil Rights do not exist.

So we are going to go to the deepest and darkest southern Antebellum state: Mississippi, during the 1950s, which clearly had a definitively racist written constitution prohibiting Black Civil Rights, and then we shall see if Social Compact Theory holds up under these trying circumstances.

So, once again, we are going to go to Item 1. in Chart 3.0, right next to the yellow Civil Rights circle and ask: “Do Civil Rights exist for Blacks?” and we are going to definitively and racially answer: NO! under our 1950s construct.

Well, unfortunately, we have a recalcitrant and hard-headed Black person who does not give up easily.  So he walks over to his local government institution, and demands Civil Rights, and in accordance with the State of Mississippi Constitution, once again (in Item 2. Practices, Policies and Procedures), keeps on getting a stern “No!” from each government agency he goes to in order to obtain his Civil Rights.  (All each governmental authority is doing, of course, is simply ‘obeying the supreme law of the land’ as defined under their state constitution.[44]  Yet, our hard-headed Black protagonist keeps on moving upwards through each ordination of law, in which to prove he has Civil Rights.   As he continually goes upwards through Items 3 through 8. in Chart 3.0 (above), he is consistently turned down from obtaining Civil Rights, due to the fact, that the constitutional right does not exist within the Mississippi state Constitution!  But when this Black person gets to Item 9. in Chart 3.0…“the Common Law,” then suddenly, he obtains legal authorization for his Civil Rights.  Going further up to Item 10. “Natural Law,” he also obtains remedy here…and then getting to Item 11. “God’s Law,” he is most assuredly granted his Civil Rights under God’s law.

Well, if Black Civil Rights exist in Items 9, 10, and 11—then how could it NOT EXIST within the complete declination of law under the Social Compact Theory?  Well, it must exist under the origination of laws under Social Compact Theory as A.) God is invoked within the Mississippi itself, and B.) under God and Natural Law (which are ultimate truth, and do not get changed or overturned), that the state is required to admit that ‘all men are created equal.’

 We must simply go back to how that individual man joined the social compact, and why the Natural Law discernment, applies heavily to this equation.  (And which should be a guidebook to each and every other social or legal question being considered).  For if you remember, for any man to join into society, to go from the state of complete individualism (within the state of nature), to voluntarily joining the Civil Society, he must at first be (what has been quoted directly above at the start at this matter):  “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, [first] he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe…”[45]

 “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him.  This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.  Before any man can be considered a member of Civil Society,[46] he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must also do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority, must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.”[47]

 Simply put, once the great state of Mississippi entered into the social compact they were doomed.  By creating their Constitution under authority of Almighty God, that they were bound to the terms and conditions under Natural Law, the Common law and Christianity, and had to allow Black’s, as a well-recognized right, their Black Civil Rights.[48]  So under Social Compact Theory we can prove Black’s have Civil Rights, but using the same law and Social Compact Theory, we can easily show that Gays and Lesbians, do not have concomitant Civil Rights.[49]  They have no rights whatsoever, as their acts and/or omissions are factual crimes, as God defines their actions as an ‘abomination’ under our stare decisis laws, which have clearly shown that their acts and/or omissions are not only against the law, but a great immorality, by operation, and recognition of law.


 In reading each Oral argument propounded by the court in these cases concerning Gay Rights and the Defense of Marriage Act (hereinafter cited as ‘DOMA’) the court is setting up their legal purview of this matter, by proffering certain questions to the various litigants in their attempts to make their ‘legal decision.’

The first concern of the court in Hollingsworth was brought up by Chief Justice ROBERTS was that of legal status of the Petitioner’s, [See:  Hollingsworth Transcript, lines 14-16, p. 3].  Through that diatribe which encompassed throughout that oral argument, the claim was made and reduced to the question that “in the case in controversy” [Hollingsworth, line 10, p. 10; and lines 22 through 25 on p. 18] where the court admits—that this is not a legal question per se—but an “experiment.”   Again, it must be judicially noted and placed on the record, that the law (which is the well-settled, and well-defined as the “good and wholesome law” of which ‘we the people’ depend), is in fact: not an experiment.  The legal identity of this Gay and Lesbian legal question, devolves not into an applied legal right—but rather; is in fact, only applied to an errant social experiment, being converted into a legal right, by misapplication of the legal process.  These current “actions” clearly overturns established case precedent iterating that our court processes are only to state and declare what the law is…and not intimate “what the law should be.”  This is a procedural fracture of our Judicial branch function, as being held to the concise rule of law—and not becoming the principal of any ‘special interest’—of which the court is attempting to mask itself, under the cloth of legal procedure and law.

The second concern regards Legal Status was proclaimed also within Hollingsworth in lines 5-7, on page 29, where MR. OLSEN said on the record: “California cannot create Article III standing by designating whoever it wants to defend the State of California in connection with the ballot.”  Justice KENNEDY on that same page states:

 But this is not whoever [the state] wants.  These are five proponents of – of the measure, and if we were to accept your argument, it would give the State a one-way ratchet.  The State could go in and make a defense, maybe a half-hearted defense of the statute, and—and then when the statute is held invalid, simply—simply leave.  On the other hand, if—if the State loses, the state can appeal.

So this is a one-way ratchet as it favors the State, and allows governors and other constitutional officers in different States to thwart the initiative process.

MR. OLSON:  “That’s the—that’s the way the California Supreme Court saw it with respect to California Law…”

Then, at page thirty (30), Justice ALITO asks:  “Well, Mr. OLSON, is it your position that the only people who could defend a ballot a law that’s adopted in California through the ballot initiative are the Attorney General and the governor, so that if the Attorney General and the governor don’t like the ballot initiative, it will go undefended?  Is that your position?”

No.  This reading is wrong, and it overturns not only the law,  but the Master / Servant relationship as to how our American system of governments operates.

We must turn to the California state constitution of 1849 itself to see the mechanization of how the Master / servant relationship works.  Please note that in that constitution under Article I, section 2:

 Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

Secondly, as we noted above, that all power issues from the people, to its government ‘public servants,’ whom have no rights, but rather; closely enumerated legal authority.  Whereas, our form of government, the Citizen is Master to the public servant, whom must obey.[50]  There is a controlling maxim of law here which simply states, that:  “The inferior hath no power over the superior.”[51]  If that it true, then; how do public servants obtain higher rights to litigate legal questions over the state Citizens??

Simply put: they do not, nor cannot.  Again, the constitution of the state is a restriction upon the powers of the public servants…not visa versa.  Neither any ‘new’ reading of law, or the law of agency can confer this countervailing power to contain more power in the agent (inferior) than that of the principal (superior).

“The constitution of this state is not to be considered as a grant of power, but rather as a restriction upon the powers of the legislature and it is competent for the legislature to exercise all powers not forbidden by the constitution of the state, or delegated to the general government, or prohibited by the constitution of the United States.”   People v. Coleman, 4 Cal. 46; People v. Bigler, 5 Cal. 23; Williams v. Thompson, Jan. T. 1856.

See also:

It is true the powers to make ex post facto laws, pass bills, [79 U.S. 457, 493]   of attainder, confer titles of nobility, are expressly forbidden to both State and Federal governments. But they were forbidden to both, because otherwise-States by virtue of their original authority, the Federal government by virtue of its expressly enumerated powers-each within its province might lawfully exercise these powers; and this at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was fully discussed and understood. Indeed, the friends of the Constitution were very generally called upon to show that the restrictions upon the Federal power were not to be taken as implying the grant of powers not expressed. Accordingly it was everywhere shown that the restrictions upon the Federal government contained in the Constitution were necessary as exceptions to powers particularly granted in the Constitution. A very precise statement was made in the Virginia convention by Mr. Edmund Randolph of the particular grant upon which each restriction on the Federal power was a limitation.  Cited from:  Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. 457 (1870).

See also:

The Bill of Rights directly limits only the powers of the national government. Baron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 248 (1833).

See also:

“No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

See also:

“The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.”[52] [116] (emphasis added). [116] [114] CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2765 (May 23, 1866).— Id. at 2766.

So, if the government employee or representative obtains the right to litigate questions before the Supreme Court of the United States, then it follows: that such an awesome agency power is also ingrained and possessed within the principal power, of ‘we the people’ themselves.  Whereas, any state Citizen also has the right to litigate upon legal questions before any court within America, or the state.  Again, if our public servants have this enumerated authority—then ‘we the people’ are superior thereto, also have these rights, powers, and privileges.  This is somewhat declared by the Private Attorney General codes within the State of California, under its Business and Professions Code which state:

 California Business and Professions Code — Private Attorney General statutes:

Section 17204.  Actions for any relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or any district attorney or by any county counsel authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation of a county ordinance, or any city attorney of a city, or city and county, having a population in excess of 750,000, and, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city prosecutor in any city having a full-time city prosecutor or, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city attorney in any city and county in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of any board, officer, person, corporation or association or by any person acting for the interests of itself, its members or the general public.

See also:

B&P § 17535.  Any person, corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, or any other association or organization which violates or proposes to violate this chapter may be enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction.

The court may make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person, corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, or any other association or organization of any practices which violate this chapter, or which may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of any practice in this chapter declared to be unlawful.

Actions for injunction under this section may be prosecuted by the Attorney General or any district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor in this state in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of any board, officer, person,[53] corporation or association or by any person acting for the interests of itself, its members or the general public.

…and also under Title 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 which Codifies the ‘private attorney general’ powers:

 “….The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn [state Citizens’] into prosecutors, “private attorneys general,” dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3  Id., at 187 (citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151) (civil RICO specifically has a “further purpose [of] encouraging potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate”).  The provision for treble damages is accordingly justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the better.”  [Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)]

What we have here is a factual application of the legal status of a Citizenry compared with the legal status of the government.  In any case: it is the Citizenry whom are supreme and have these vested rights over that of their own public servants, who are their inferiors.  Whereas, any individual state Citizen has contains the right to bring their application of law and rights to any court throughout either the state, or Federal venue’s and jurisdictions.  Clearly, in California, these rights are closely enumerated again, within its codes, where under the California Code of Civil Procedure under sections 30 and 307, to wit:

 30.  A civil action is prosecuted by one party against another for the declaration, enforcement or protection of a right, or the redress or prevention of a wrong.

See also:

307.  There is in this State but one form of civil actions for the enforcement or protection of private rights and the redress or prevention of private wrongs.

Again, in order to drive this scholarship home, we must turn our attention as to the legal status of the Defendants’ (e.g. “Respondents’)…[54]

Their acts and/or omissions made by Defendants’/Respondents’ under the law are not a Civil Right (as we have posited under the ‘Social Compact Theory’ noted above); but rather, are an ‘in fact’ crime.  What the Respondents are doing in both Hollingsworth and Windsor (the DOMA case), are attempting an illegal conversion: by turning what is illegal into legality or a Civil Right.  They cannot do this for several purposes…

We must recognize, that it is not only the duty of the courts, but also of government itself to weigh what is best, or what is termed “good and wholesome law”[55] for society.  In other words, government when either passing, or implementing the law, is to take the most reasonable, best, and safe court in both instituting and promulgating enforcement of the law.  So when ‘we the people’ as represented by our public servants, start making or enforcing the law, we are to take the safest, most reasonable route.  In other words, when our society passes or enforces law, it collectively ‘rolling the dice’—and in a course most prudent and amicable, we only make “bet” upon implementation of the ‘good and wholesome laws’ of the state.  The controlling maxim here clearly states this, when it says: Periculosum est res novas et inusitatas inducere. “It is dangerous to introduce new and dangerous things. Co. Litt. 379.”  But more important than this; it is the governments application and attendance to make “good and wholesome laws,” which throughout statistic analysis of any chance endeavor—that in each and every ‘roll of the dice’ throughout society—that our laws wind up protecting us, by and through the most ‘reasonable road,’ time and time again.

Indeed.  In fact, there are a myriad of persons throughout both the executive, judicial and legislative venues, that currently hyperventilate that we must “change” not only the form of government, but also its substance, by small encroachments against the rights of man.  These people do not want the concise rule of law, but rather; want “experiments” and “special interest agenda” in order to power and enforce their Brave New World(s).  This disposition has been resoundingly overturned by a panoply of stare decisis case decisions across the spectrum of law.  Again, please note as to what past courts under stare decisis have disposited about this legal construction:

 “That for the Constitution to declare a right inalienable, and at the same time leave the Legislature unlimited power over it, would be a contradiction in terms, and idle provision, proving that a Constitution was mere parchment barrier, insufficient to protect the citizen, delusive and visionary, and the practical result of which would be to destroy, not conserve, the rights it vainly presumed to protect.”   Billings v. Hall, 71 Cal.App 15-17

Again, these small subordinations to our nations laws were recognized as being directly inimical to the formation and enforcement of a nations laws from time immemorial.  It was Cicero who noted this by saying:

 “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known, and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor. He speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in hearts of men. He rots the soul of a nation. He works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city. He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A Murderer Is Less To Be Feared.”     –Cicero, 42 B.C.

Where in Hollingsworth, the Court immediately attacks the Plaintiff in regards to legal status issue[56]—in Windsor, (DOMA U.S. S.ct. case # 12-307)[57] where Edith Windsor is the lesbian Plaintiff and moving party in the case, seeking judicial relief: of which the legal status of plaintiff is nowhere concomitantly addressed…nor is it even brought up!  So we are compelled to ask: “What is the legal status of Ms. Edith Windsor as plaintiff in this case before the Supreme Court of the United States?”[58]

As plaintiff, coming under the above mentioned CCP §§ 30 and 307 “rights of plaintiff to bring an action to enforce a right, or defend against a wrong,” we can see that she cannot come under any one of those asserted rights or defenses, as defined under law.

The fact is, that Ms. Windsor is a criminal, attempting to use the judicial processes to squeeze out a Homosexual right of which the courts are obligated to understand only as an illegal act, of which society and the law has declared as an inherent evil and wrong.  Where by the slight of hands of the supreme court—does this rise to a level of this being converted into a right?  Again, we must look at the Social Compact Theory and attempt to divine and right therein, of which we have already proved that such a right does not exist, under the concise rule of law.

Another aberration in regards to the concise rule of law, is both the supreme court’s and the various attorney’s attempting to redefine marriage.  Attorney PAUL D. CLEMENT propounds this view:

 “…but the legal issue on the merits before this Court is actually quite narrow.  On the assumption that States have the constitutional option either to define marriage in traditional terms or to recognize same-sex marriages or adopt a comprise like civil unions, does the Federal government have the same flexibility or must the Federal government simply borrow the terms in State law?

I would submit the basic principles of federalism suggest that as long as the Federal; government defines those terms solely for the purposes of Federal law, that the Federal government has the choice to adopt a constitutionally permissible definition or borrow the terms of the statute.”  [Windsor, lines 24-25, page 55; and lines 1-12 p. 56].

Once again, this is a slight-of-hand being implemented by both the court and its attorneys.  The state does not have this right to mold the law if it were a ball of clay.  Once again, the law is defined in the law.   You can go to any law dictionary and look up the law.  If you do, you will see well-settled law encompassing thousands of years of development.  Now, in a fortnight—by and through special interests—that law is being unlawfully overturned—for a new and base morality—without a shot being fired, nor one vote being taken.[59]  And herein lies the rub.

What the courts throughout this nation have established, by getting away from Social Compact Theory, where there was once, a well-definable and well-settled, and unchanged and well-understood law; now: in the words PAUL D. CLEMENT, that both state and federal governments “have the choice” to elect what they want on well-defined and narrow issues.[60]  Now, instead of courts having well-defined and narrow legal choices, under strict construction standards as defined throughout our state and federal constitutions; that now the courts enlarge the disparate legal issues, one broadly construed and one narrow—and make an election; a choice; a “new law” which will answer the legal issue.  This violates the fundamental maxim of law which states:

 Origo rei inspici debet. “The origin of a thing ought to be inquired into.” 1 Co. 99.

As stated previously under the Social Compact Theory section, this wilful blindness to our established and well-settled laws has admittedly turned our laws, into “twisted case precedent”; where the plebiscites of a nation, no longer have stability in the law, but rather the government’s constant state of war, “choice” of law, their “choice of legal definition,” their choice between settled law, and social experiment.  And directly due to this—we are all the more less and equally harmed for these transgressions.

We do not make a choice of law in this American society, especially upon one as so well-defined, and well-settled and ancient as the institution of marriage.  Our law dictionaries state:

 MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman[61] reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. Dig. 23, 2, 1; Ayl. Parer. 359; Stair, Inst. tit. 4, s. 1; Shelford on Mar. and Div. c. 1, s. 1.  To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, Able to contract, and have actually contracted.

3. – 1. They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infant; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve, and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians.[62]

Unbeknownst to this supreme court; that they have a well-established and defined fiduciary duty to uphold the institution of marriage.  Not Gay Marriage, but the institution of marriage itself.  Please note:

 “…As guardian[s] of the interests of the public and persons not parties to the record[63], it is our imperative duty to prevent dissolution of the marriage relation by means which the law condemns and expressly forbids.

An infant child is the issue of this marriage, and we cannot tolerate that its character shall be sullied and its career clouded by a Judicial conviction of the Father on such evidence of infidelity to the most sacred obligations.  Since the “common-law marriages,” so called-another name for concubinage-is so obtrusively prevalent in the community, and our calendars are crowded with applications for divorce, it behooves us not to relax the stringency of the rules which, in the interests of good morals and social security, have been prescribed by law for the safeguard of the sanctity and stability of the marriage relation.[64]

Daly Ch. J., and Bischoff, J. Concur.[65]

So this supreme court, as “guardians of the interests of the public and persons not parties to the record, the Supreme Court and each justice thereof, has an imperative duty to prevent the dissolution of the marriage relation by means of which the law condemns and expressly forbids.”  It is clear and concise and beyond dispute, that there is a clear legal and well-defined meaning of the word, MARRIAGE, as noted above, that it embraces the “good and wholesome law,” and that it must be protected, and defended against special interest “social experiment.”

On page 60 within the Windsor Oral argument, it is once again MR. CLEMENT who states:

 “…[R]emember in 1996, Congress is addressing this issue because they are thinking that the State of Hawaii through its judicial action, is about to change the definition of marriage from a way that it had been defined in every jurisdiction in the United States.

How?  How can any state, including Hawaii, “change the law” or “change legal definition(s)?”  Please point out the concise rule of law and constitutional authority where state public servants oath’s of office and each state Governor’s duty to “make sure that the law is faithfully obeyed,” and each judiciary is charged, “only to state what the law is, and not what it should be, and where each state federal constitution is in uniformity thereof,[66] where does such constitutional authority issue to any government official’s (i.e. “public servants”) right to “change the definition of law?”  Where can they change the “legal definition” of the law in the light of social experiment?!?  Please point to the concise constitutional authority to do this!  Please note, it is well settled that:

 We interpret statutes to carry out the Legislature’s intent, determined by the words of a statute interpreted according to “the ordinary and approved usage of the language.” Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444, 447 (1934). The everyday meaning of “marriage” is “[t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife,” Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 986 (7th ed.1999), and the plaintiffs do not argue that the term “marriage” has ever had a different meaning under Massachusetts law. See, e.g., Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810) (marriage “is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife”). This definition of marriage, as both the department and the Superior Court judge point out, derives from the common law. See Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Mass. 530, 535 (1807) (Massachusetts common law derives from English common law except as otherwise altered by Massachusetts statutes and Constitution). See also Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 462-463 (1873) (“when the statutes are silent, questions of the validity of marriages are to be determined by the jus gentium, the common law of nations”); C.P. Kindregan, Jr., & M.L. Inker, Family Law and Practice § 1.2 (3d ed.2002).

The maxims of law are well-versed in this intrigue, and they prohibit such implementation.  Our constitutions themselves, both state and federal; prohibit it. Indeed, there is a lexicon of various maxims which speak to us from the past on this exact subject, please note these controlling maxims of law:

 Judicia posteriora sunt in lege fortiora.  “The latter decisions are stronger in law.” 8 Co. 97.

Contractus ex turpi causƒ, vel contr… bonos mores nullus est.  “A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null.” Hob. 167; Dig. 2, 14, 27, 4.

“Where two rights concur, the more ancient shall be preferred.”

Quod populus postremum jussit, id just ratum esto“What the people have last enacted, let that be the established law.”

Saepe viatorim nova non vetus orbita fallit. “Often it is the new road, not the old one, which deceives the traveler.” 4 Co. Inst. 34.

Si a jure discedas vagus eris, et erunt omnia omnibus incerta. “If you depart from the law, you will wander without a guide, and everything will be in a state of uncertainty to every one.” Co. Litt. 227.

Actor qui contra regulam quid adduxit, non est audiendus. “He ought not to be heard who advances a proposition contrary to the rules of law.”

Sicut natura nil facit per saltum, ita nec lex.  “As nature does nothing by a bound or leap, so neither does the law.” Co. Litt. 238.

Solemnitas juris sunt observandae.  “The solemnities of law are to be observed.” Jenk. Cent. 13.

Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur.  “One absurdity begin allowed, an infinity follow.” 1 co. 102.

When the common law and statute law concur, the common law is to be preferred. 4 Co. 71.

Regula pro lege, si deficit lex.  “In default of the law, the maxim rules.”

 Rei turpis nullum mandatum est. A mandate of an illegal thing is void. Dig. 17, 1, 6, 3.



 Who are these people, placing such anti-law before our courts to cloak and convert them into civil rights?

Again, we must do a systems analysis here.  Who are these persons’ whom are attempting to destroy the institution of marriage?!?  If you look at their foundational precepts, you will find that this is a hate group, who have a well-defined hatred for American Law, marriage, the Christian religion, and heterosexual men.

Please note their founding precepts:

  •  “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and woman until we destroy marriage.”[67]
  • “A women needs a man, like a fish needs a bicycle.”  [“All heterosexual sex is rape.”][68]
  • “We must destroy the Patriarchy, and the Church.”
  • “…[I]t is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men… All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft“ — The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971.[69]
  • The whole Feminist cult is rankly atheistical, and they despise the teaching of St. Paul and of the church. They proclaim the “New Religion” and the “New Freedom of Women,” for by these they are “emancipated” from all moral and religious restraint.  — Benjamin V. Hubbard — (Socialism, Feminism, and Suffragism,1915, pp. 142[70]
  • Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.  Catharine A. MacKinnon, in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. 1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 10[71]
  • ‘…Women’s liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible. By defining between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength.’   — Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse[72]
  • “Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class hatred. Feminism’s business is fashioning weapons to be used against men in society, education, politics, law and divorce court. The feminist aim is to overthrow “patriarchal tyranny.” In this undertaking, the male’s civil rights count for no more than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany.”  What civil rights has wrought. By Paul Craig Roberts, July 26, 2000 – Creators Syndicate[73]
  • “…[M]odern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism… Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman’s oppression… Communists pioneered women’s studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children’s rights… It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The “diversity” and “multicultural” movements represent feminism’s attempt to forge “allegiances” by empowering gays and “people of color.” Thus, the original CPUSA (Communist Party USA – CPUSA) trio of “race, gender and class” is very much intact but class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes)… Many feminists are embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds. Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military… The evidence is everywhere. The term “politically correct” originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920´s. We use it everyday to refer to adherence to feminist dogma… Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name.”  — American Communism And The Making Of Women´s Liberation. by Henry Makow Ph.D., Toogood Reports. October 3, 2001[74]
  • “Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down to us from the Sixties. This is a revolutionary, not a reformist, movement, and it is meeting with considerable success. Totalitarian in spirit, it is deeply antagonistic to traditional Western culture and proposes the complete restructuring of society, morality, and human nature.”  — Robert H. Bork (1996), in Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Regan Books/HarperCollins, NY (pp.193-225)[75]
  • “The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon[76]
  • “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin[77]
  • “Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.” — Andrea Dworkin[78]
  • “The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist” — Ti-Grace Atkinson[79]
  • Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.” — Ti-Grace Atkinson[80]
  • “All men are good for is ****ing, and running over with a truck”.  Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.[81]
  • Here are 10 reasons why we are concerned about feminism and the National Organization for Women.[82]

1. “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist” (National NOW Times, January, 1988).

2. “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage” (feminist leader Sheila Cronan).

3. In response to a question concerning China’s policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, “I consider the Chinese government’s policy among the most intelligent in the world” (Gary Bauer, “Abetting Coercion in China,” The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989). 4. “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole…patriarchy!” (Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of MS magazine).asdf

5. “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women…. We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men…. All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft” (from “The Declaration of Feminism,” November, 1971). 6. “By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.” (Gloria Steinem, editor of MS magazine). 7. “Let’s forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women…. Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist ‘salvation’ of this world.” (Annie Laurie Gaylor, “Feminist Salvation,” The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988. 8. “In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman). 9. “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981. 10. “The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it.” (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in “Women and the New Race,” p. 67).

We must recognize, that this rhetoric was also proclaimed throughout the early Gay and Homosexuality movements throughout their writings, which also came under the coverture of the Feminist anti-male, anti-home and family, anti-nuclear family ideology:

  • Thus we find in the early days of the gay movement a strident rhetoric and connections with socialistic ideology and the new left. The literature of liberation was full of it. But there also was political naiveté’ and unbridled idealism. The gay movement was caught up in the civil rights, antiwar, anti-draft, anti-Capitalist, feminist and ecological ideology.[83]

…In other words: communism.

The implementation of these anti-American, anti-home and family, and anti-Capitalist sentiments, led to social experiments which have ruined this society.  Now, through the infliction of “Family Law” throughout the aegis of society, we have a new Apartheid directed against men, outright destruction of the home and family, all  committed under the genius of Feminist, Socialist, and Gay and Homosexual ideology, which have become the main ‘rule of law’ (it is not law) throughout this country.  For instance, after a half-century or more of Feminism, which has now become the lexicon of ‘law’ throughout our court systems, this culture now suffers from its sustained ‘constant state-of-war’ which has factually destroyed both men and their families:


According to a new publication called Getting Men Involved: The Newsletter of the Bay Area Male Involvement Network, , Spring 1997:

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census”

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God’s Children.)

70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

(Because only a portion of each age group grew up in a fatherless home,) these statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide

32 times more likely to run away

20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders

14 times more likely to commit rape

9 times more likely to drop out of high school

10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances

9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution

20 times more likely to end up in prison.[84]

If this supreme court implements yet another over-reaching social experiment under the color of law, and under color of authority of the Gays, Homosexuals, and Lesbians…then; we will see yet another panorama of easily identifiable social pathologies which will become yet another grouping of rote social science statistics which will emanate from the source of these Gay social ills…just like what is shown now, throughout the Feminists’ overturning of the laws by their social experiment.

In this case, we must ask ourselves: how did such readily aberrant and criminal social groups gain entry not only into our court and educational systems, but our media, social groups, and even government itself?  How did the sick, anti-American, and pro-Socialist forces control our society, into the highest corridor’s of power?

Clearly, it is time that our state and federal Legislatures enact studies on how these groups not only infiltrated our governments, but how they also overturned the good and wholesome laws, in which to implement “something else,” which our form of government, does not, nor cannot allow.




 Passage of the Gay and Lesbian “Right to Marry” will overturn not only the people’s will, it will also overturn well-settled law throughout this nation of which ‘we the people’ depend.  Allowing such criminality under the rubric of Supreme Court authority, and/or social experiment will damage ‘we the people,’ and many of the social institutions served by the marriage relation.

In my second book:  Suffering Patriarchy, An Analytical Exploration into the Promise of the Forbidden Planet,” I catalogued the host of problems from such an endeavor.  Please judicially note and place on the record, the floodgates of social war, unhealthy disease and threats to safety, that allowing the implementation of gay marriage, will place upon society as a whole:

 o     The Reality: A 1981 study showed that only 2% of homosexuals have relationships that are even semi-stable (which for the purposes of the study was defined as having fewer than 10 lifetime partners!) The average homosexual has 500 (mostly anonymous) lifetime partners. Thirty percent of homosexuals will have more than 1000 sexual partners in their lifetime.[85]

o     Gay, lesbian, bisexual youth are three times more likely as their heterosexual peers to have been threatened or injured with a weapon at school (1999 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey)

o     Lesbian and gay youth comprise approximately 30% of all teen suicides (Health and Human Services, 1989)

o     Lesbian and gay youth make up approximately 25% of all homeless youth in the U.S. (Gibson, 1989)

o     More than 44 percent of homosexuals suffer from feelings of poor self-esteem and extreme loneliness.   * Nearly 50 percent of homosexuals experience distress from homosexual thoughts and feelings.

* Information courtesy of a study conducted by the National Association of Research and Therapy

The study was conducted on a national level and had 882 participants.

According to researchers, the following physical disorders would be present among ten randomly selected homosexual men in their mid-thirties:

o        – 3 are alcoholics

o        – 3 have seriously contemplated suicide

o        – 5 have a history of alcohol abuse

o        – 2 have attempted suicide

o        – 4 have a history of drug abuse[86]

o        – 8 have a history of sexually transmitted disease

o        – 3 currently smoke cigarettes

o        – 8 currently carry infectious pathogens

o        – 5 regularly use at least one illegal drug

o        – 3 currently suffer from digestive or urinary ailments caused by these pathogens

o        – 3 are multiple drug users

o        – 3 are HIV-infected

o        – 4 have a history of acute depression- 1 has AIDS

o        Information courtesy “Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality, Debate” by Thomas E. Schmidt, Ph.D.[87]

o     U.S. statistics show the average heterosexual man has eight lifetime partners, most if not all, before marriage.  The average gay man has 36 different partners a year, and some upwards of 1000.  A 1996 NZ Aids Foundation study found the average length of an all-male relationship to be 4 years 3 months.[88]

o     A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1 ½ years on average—even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same sex “marriages.”…Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows”…”The Dutch study—which focused on transmission of HIV—found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.  Earlier studies indicated that homosexual men are not monogamous, even when they are involved in long-term relationships.[89]

o     A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals.[90]

 o     A study of 6,714 obituaries in gay newspapers across the  U.S. revealed that 3% of 6,574 gays and 20% of 140 lesbians had died violently:[91]

o     Gay Bowel Syndrome:

Gay Bowel Syndrome is a collection of bowel diseases which lead to dysfunction of the lower bowel tract (meaning that one must wear a colostomy bag) and is endemic to the Gay community. Physicians from the John Hopkins School of Public Health note in their recent study of 388 homosexuals that male homosexuals are “at high risk for Gay Bowel Syndrome’ because of … their ‘distinctive sexual practices.'”(Note: estimates suggest that up to 10 people every day die of complications to contaminations like those listed below.) William Gairdner, “The War Against the Family a parent speaks out” (Toronto Stoddart, 1992). p. 388[92]

o     Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America’s population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America’s most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.

o     An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature’s only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual “diaries,” indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men,” New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435- 438; as quoted in “Homosexuality and Civil Rights,” Tony Marco, 1992).

o     A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been “monogamous” during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engaged in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey (“AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Homosexual Men in San Francisco,” American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75: 493-496; quoted in “Homosexuality and Civil Rights,” Tony Marco, 1992).

o      Lesbians show similar patterns of high venereal disease incidence relative to the general population. They are 19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact and 12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact (“Medical Aspects of Homosexuality,” Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1985, Jaffe and Keewhan, et al.; quoted in “Homosexuality and Civil Rights,” Tony Marco, 1992).

o     AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book “Sexual Preference” (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from “Homosexuality and Civil Rights,” Tony Marco, 1992).

o     To the present time, 75 to 85 percent of AIDS cases reported are related to homosexual activity, promiscuous heterosexual sex and IV drug abuse. AIDS stubbornly refuses to spread into the population in general, even 20 years after its discovery, despite dire warnings to the contrary.

o     These diseases are acquired directly through the sexual behavior homosexual activists are asking Americans to legally endorse and protect. Yet, as professor Jerome Lejeune of Descartes University, Paris, says of AIDS: “Only God can truly pardon the one who violates His laws; man pardons at times; Nature never pardons at all: She is not a person.” The brutal consequences of attempting to break the natural law are not bigoted or hateful, nor are those, like Dr. Laura, Cal Thomas or Gary Morella, who try to point out the dangers and simple truths.

o     We are seeing the natural consequences of violating nature’s laws now. They are also a warning to prevent the ultimate eternal consequences. How many will ignore that warning and continue to call the messenger a bigot and continue to shake their fist at God? How many will heed that warning of a loving Father, ready to forgive and reconcile His prodigal children?

o     One 1982 study found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal.[93] And a 1997 study again drew attention to the “strong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contact.”[94]

o     Another study found that: 1) 80% of syphilitic patients are homosexual; 2) about one-third of homosexuals are infected with active anorectal herpes simplex viruses; 3) chlamydia infects 15% of homosexuals; and 4) “a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population.”[95]

o     Another study found that: 1) amoebiasis, a parasitic disease, afflicts around 32% of homosexuals; 2) giardiasis, also a parasitic disease, afflicts 14% of homosexuals (no heterosexuals in the study were found to have either amoebiasis or giardiasis); 3) gonorrhea afflicts 14% of homosexuals; and 4) 11% of homosexuals had anal warts.[96]

o     Another study found bacterial vaginosis occurring in 33% of the lesbians but only in 13% of heterosexual women, and found that: “Cervical cytology abnormalities were uncommon but only found in the lesbians.” (Those abnormalities may be precursors to cervical cancers.)[97]

o     In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.[98]

o     Another study of lesbians found a “relatively high prevalence of the viral STDs, herpes simplex and human papillomavirus [HPV].” And according to another: “Genital HPV infection and squamous intraepithelial lesions are common among women who are sexually active with women.”[99]

o     “A CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] study released…this month [July 2002] found that many gay and bisexual men who are HIV-positive don’t know it. Overall, 77 percent of the…HIV-positive men in the study were unaware they were infected.” [100]

o     Anal Cancer — Dr. Stephen E. Goldstone, the medical director of says he has found that 68% of HIV-positive and 45% of HIV negative homosexual males have abnormal or precancerous anal cells. A 1987 study, “Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidences of Anal Cancer” in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that “homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal cancer (37%) reported that they were homosexual or bisexual, in contrast to only 1 in 64 controls.”[101]

o     Sexually Transmitted Diseases — A 1999 study published in the American Journal of Public Health indicated that homosexuals are five times as likely to have Hepatitis B as their heterosexual Counterparts. A 1999 study in Sexually Transmitted Diseases indicated that 25% of homosexuals have rectal Gonorrhea and Gonorrhea of the throat is prevalent because of oral sex practices. The book, The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: A Medical Handbook for Men states that more than 50% of homosexual males have the Human Papilloma Virus. Homosexuals are acquiring Syphilis in record numbers. The CDC released two reports on Syphilis in February, 2001. One report said that Syphilis rates had declined by 22% in the U.S. since 1997. The second indicated that Syphilis rates among homosexuals in Southern California had risen from 26% to 51% in one year. The report also noted that in Southern California alone, 60% of Syphilis-infected homosexuals were also HIV positive.[102]

o     HIV from Anal Intercourse — In the U.S., anal intercourse continues to be the primary transmission route of HIV infection for homosexuals. The CDC says there are 40,000 new infections each year and the rate of infection is climbing because many younger homosexuals are engaging in risky behaviors. Many have become complacent about the epidemic because of new drugs that control the progression of the disease. As a result, homosexuals are staying alive longer and infecting more individuals. As of 1998, 54% of all HIV infections were homosexuals. An estimated 1 million Americans have been infected with HIV since it was first discovered in the early 1980s. Worldwide, 21 million people have died; 450,000 Americans have died so far from HIV-related diseases.[103]

o     It is also not surprising that in 1994 epidemiologists estimated that 30% of all 20-year-old homosexually active men would be HIV positive or dead of AIDS by the time they were 30.[104]

o     “In New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, the number of cases of syphilis in homosexual men approximately doubled every year from 1998 through 2001, and it looks like they will double again this year [2002]….[T]he syphilis outbreaks not only tell us that our hopes of eliminating this disease with the next decade are gone, but also confirm predictions that we will see a second wave of HIV infection in gay men.”[105]

o     “[A]bout 40 percent [of new +HIV infections in the U.S.] occur among men who have sex with men.”[106]

o     0.6% of gays and 5.7% of lesbians committed suicide (rates dozens of times more than those of non-gays); and

o     0.6% of gays and 4.3% of lesbians died in motor vehicle accidents (over 17 times the rate of non-gays)

o     These events, coupled with various STDs (especially AIDS) gotten from other gays, resulted in a median age of death of 40 among gays and a median age of death of 45 among lesbians. In the same study, comparison samples of married men had a median age of death of 75 and married women a median age of death of 79. For divorced or single persons the median age of death was 57 for men and 71 for women.  Cameron, P.  Is Homosexuality disproportionately associated with murder?  Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Assn., Chicago, 1983.[107]

o     “Gabriel Rotello, gay columnist of New York Newsday, wrote recently that it’s time to tell the truth: ‘Up to 50 percent of gay men…are infected with HIV, while just a tiny fraction of 1 percent of middle-class straights are.'”[108]

o     1.4% of gays and 7% of lesbians were murdered (rates over a hundred times those of non-gays);

o     Violence in gay male and lesbian relationships:  Implications for practitioners and policy makers.  Paper presented at the Third National  Conference for Family Violence Researchers, Durham, NH, July, 1987.  High incidence of abuse in their survey of a self-selected sample of 174 lesbians.  About 26% of their respondents reported having been subjected to at least one act of sexual violence.  59.8% had been victims of physical violence, and 81% had experienced verbal or emotional abuse.  At the same time, 68% of the respondents reported that they had used violence against their current or most recent partner and had been victimized by a partner.[109]

o     Studies of intra-lesbian violence provide further evidence of the potential for female initiated violence.  A surprising 54% of lesbians report having been physically abusive in their current relationship while 14% of gay men report abuse in their current relationship.  Contrast this with 3% of women who report that they have suffered abuse from their current heterosexual partner and 11% of heterosexual men and women who report ever being involved in an abusive relationship at any time, either at present or in the past [8], [9], [10]  [8] “Violence in Gay and Lesbian Relationships…”, Lori Dawson, Caroline Waterman, Michael Bologna, SUNY.  [9]  “Is it a war against women?” John Leo, U.S. News and World Report, July 1994. [10]  “Spouse Abuse4: A Two-way Street,” Warren Farrell, Ph.D. USA Today, June 29, 1994.[110]

o  While homosexuals are only 1-2% of the population, they account for as many as 40% of all child molestations in the U.S.[111]

Clearly, the supreme court in even attempting this legalization of Gay and Lesbian marriage, is not in conformance with their oath, by these presents, to uphold the safety of the American public in this matter.  Again, the controlling maxim of law herein states:  Salus populi est suprema lex.  “The safety of the people is the supreme law.” Bacon’s Max. in Reg. 12; Broom’s Max. 1.

Is this the brass ring of perversion, immorality, and social upheaval our collective society wins when this supreme court implements gay marriage as the rule of law throughout this nation?

It better not be.


 We are not sending up Space shuttles here.  The law of this case is well-defined throughout both law and history, going back circa 5,000 years ago…and perhaps even before that.  As delineated within the bible, the following prohibitions were clearly stated and established within the Bible:



Ø      Leveticus 20:13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Ø      Leviticus 18:21-22:  21“‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. 22“‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Ø      Romans 1:26-27:  26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.


 Ø      1 Corinthians 6:9-10:  9Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers–none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Ø      1 Kings 22:46:  46He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa.

Ø      1 Kings 15:12-13:  12He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made. 13He even deposed his grandmother Maacah from her position as queen mother, because she had made a repulsive Asherah pole. Asa cut the pole down and burned it in the Kidron Valley.

Ø      2 Kings 23:6-8:  6He took the Asherah pole from the temple of the LORD to the Kidron Valley outside Jerusalem and burned it there. He ground it to powder and scattered the dust over the graves of the common people. 7He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah. 8Josiah brought all the priests from the towns of Judah and desecrated the high places, from Geba to Beersheba, where the priests had burned incense. He broke down the shrines at the gates–at the entrance to the Gate of Joshua, the city governor, which is on the left of the city gate.

Ø      1 Kings 14:23-24:  23They also set up for themselves high places, sacred stones and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every spreading tree. 24There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.

Ø      Deuteronomy 23:17-18:  17No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. 18You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.

Ø      Leviticus 20:13:  13“‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Ø      1 Timothy 1:8-10:  8Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching.

Ø      if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;[a] 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked8  (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials,[b] and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,10  and especially those who indulge[c] in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

Ø      Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,

Ø      2 Peters 6-10:  Later, God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and turned them into heaps of ashes. He made them an example of what will happen to ungodly people.

Ø      Jude 1:7:  In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.


 Ø      Matthew 19:4-5; cf. Mark 10:6-8:  “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”[112]

So clearly; from time immemorial, under the statutes of God, that both the Gay and Lesbian lifestyle was considered unclean, unholy and detestable.  From this, a body of law was established throughout Western Civilization, to the present date; that recognized God’s law, and the law as propounded within the Christian bible, which outlawed the Gay and Lesbian lifestyle.  The unclean and detested lifestyle was declared as an ‘abomination’ before God—a factual crime and unlawful—and no free society countenanced such an aberrant lifestyle.

 This strict construction given by the command and statutes of God, were not without redemption, under 1 Corinthians 6:11, instructed such weak individuals as to the cure and redemption under his laws, which stated:

Ø      11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

 “IF” we do not recognize the organic foundations of the law as iterated throughout the Christian ethos, then; we are succumbing to the predilection, that man’s law (which changes constantly)[113] is superior to God’s perfect law (which has not changed over the ages).  Such a belief system defiles our current understanding of law, and places our whole nation upon shaky ground, leaving the ‘concise rule of law’ to sycophants, who construction a ‘nation of laws’ that is unstable, undependable, and is akin to attempting to nail Jell-O to a tree.

We can see this by the Oral discussions now promulgated by this nations highest court, that the common Citizen, can no longer reach the law in our own court systems.  Any Citizen attempting to declare a fundamentally guaranteed right in this nation, is being proactively overturned by these courts “New Law” interpretation.  Usually, as personally experienced throughout the several courts throughout the State of California, and elsewhere, the people’s right to assert both the law and their personal liberties, has been completely subjugated by these errant courts.  Any person, agent, or entity attempting to protect the Citizenry, by asserting personal rights, or property rights within any court in this nation, usually get their heads handed to them, in the court’s vituperative denial of those rights by the invocation of “New Law” or “Foreign Law.”

The Hollingsworth and Windsor cases are lining up to be such cases.  The court appears to be doing a slight-of-hand to discuss obtuse legal issues of no true value to the case at bar, and instead of discussing the Law, and Facts of the Case, in which to come to the conclusion the law dictates, are instead, inventing a sophistry to redefine the law.  To make what is fundamentally illegal: legal.  Again, the Supreme Court is not of a delegation of authority to do these acts and/or omissions…but appears that this is the sham proceedings that they are implementing.



 As we have seen, the implementation of this ‘social experiment’ in allowing the Supreme Court to defy fundamental law, and fundamental guarantees for the safety and well being of the American society; has many both seen and unseen consequences.  This supreme court is attempting, by other tertiary legal discussions, to move the focus away from the concise rule of law, to more clouded and obfuscating arguments, and attendant ‘social experiments’ which do not go to the center of this legal argument.

As has been exemplified by a more recent history of the court, that each Justice thereupon, are not going into the breach of the battle to directly address the true and rational legal arguments that at are the core of this case.  Rather, they believe themselves to be sophists,[114] and are more intent to misdirect and obfuscate the true legal issues, to come to a more predetermined result.  That predetermined legal result will be the destruction of marriage, by and through the implementation of Gay Marriage.

We must remember, that predetermined courts, like our Supreme Court, are a prima facie identity of the soviet court system.  Both noting and quoting this fact, is Alexi Solzehenitsyn who wrote the Gulag Archipelago:

 “The…main characteristic of our political courts is the lack of ambiguity in their work, which is to say predetermined verdicts…sentences might even by typed out ahead of time, with only the prisoner’s name to be added later, by hand…

….The machine stamped out the sentences.  The prisoner had already been deprived of all rights then they cut off his buttons on the threshold of State Security, and he couldn’t avoid a stretch.  The members of the legal profession were so used to this that they fell on their faces in 1958 and caused a big scandal.  The test of the projected new “Fundamental Principles of Criminal Prosecution of the U.S.S.R.” was published in the newspapers and they’d forgotten to included any reference to possible grounds for acquittal.”[115]

The main focus on the government institution of the Three Card Monty game is to have an unsuspecting person enter into a fixed, predetermined game, whose outcome is already known beforehand: e.g., that the rube lose and the person running the game always wins.  This is the current court system paradigm.  Let us deconstruct each fact of Hollingsworth and Windsor, in the light most favorable to settled-law:

1.)    The courts are allowing persons who are criminals under the well-settled legal definition of law to enter our courts, and make application to obtain a super-right, nowhere allowed throughout the aegis of our law, as a new court defined legal privilege.

2.)    They are allowing such persons, to enter our courts, with UNCLEAN HANDS[116] and make application for special considerations under the law.  This is precluded throughout the American legal system.  Please note:

“The defense of unclean hands need not be pleaded at all in order to be considered by the Court. When the evidence discloses the fraud or illegality or unconscionable character of a transaction, the Court, whether the defense is pleaded or not, will of its own motion apply it. It is one which the Court itself is bound to raise in the interest of the due administration of justice. It cannot be obviated or waived by any system of pleading, or even by express stipulation of the parties.” [emphasis added]

SEE: Unconscionable contract “A contract, or a clause in a contract, that is so grossly unfair to one of the parties because of stronger bargaining powers of the other party; usually held to be void as against public policy.  An unconscionable bargain or contract is one which no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept, on the other.”  Hume v. U.S., 132 U.S. 406, 10 S.Ct. 134, 33 L.Ed. 393  [BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Edition, pg. 1525]

CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE:  “Under this doctrine, equity will not grant relief to a party, who, as actor, seeks to set judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, if such party in prior conduct has violated conscience or good faith or other equitable principle.  Franklin v. Franklin, 365 Mo. 442, 283 S.W.2d 483, 486.  One seeking equitable relief cannot take advantage of one’s own wrong.  Fair Automotive Repair, Inc. v. Car-X Services Systems, Inc., 2 Dist., 128 Ill.App.3d 763, 84 Ill. Dec. 25, 471 N.E.2d 554, 558.

Ex dolo malo non oritur actio Out of fraud no action arises; fraud never gives a right of action.  No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act.

See also:

The doctrine of “unclean hands” is an equitable defense that is raised to bar a party from obtaining equitable relief when the party seeking relief has engaged in some wrongdoing.  Ballas v. Tedesco, 41 F.Supp. 2d 531 (D.N.J. 1999). (Federal case).
The essence of the “unclean hands” doctrine is that a suitor in equity must come into court with clean hands and must keep them clean after his entry and throughout the proceedings. Borough of Princeton v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Mercer, 169 N.J. 135 (2001).

3.)    That if this legal question were presented to mere children, let’s say from three (3) years to seven (7) years old, that it is most probable that those children would respond to this matter, that it is wrong for a boy to be with a boy and a girl to be with a girl in the state of marriage.[117]  Somehow, through the intelligencia of the courts, this simplicity of reason has been intentionally obfuscated and even overturned by the court, (even throughout our Churches, who should know better), in order to implement a new “Social Experiment” which is in contravention to law.

Whereas, this legal question devolves to in the present situation: “What the hell is going on here?”  And to answer this, we must turn to the fact, that the Judicial branch of our governments, are no longer upholding the law, but rather, by steady encroachments—they are proactively overturning the rule of law, in direct violation to the Social Compact.





 There are innumerable cases throughout law which warn the American public of “steady encroachments,” against their liberties.  Changing the law is clearly, one of those ‘steady encroachments,’ that they speak of.  We must note these facts:

 Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon. — Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 635.

In Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798) Supreme Court justice Chase stated:

“The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it……This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit.”

In other words, the natural limits of the law are found in the reasons for which people contract together in society. Chase goes on to say in Calder V. Bull, “There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof of the government was established. An ACT of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded.”

Again, this is a proof.  The Gay’s and Lesbians of this society keep on iterating their fetid claim, that Gay Civil Rights, is in the same exact nature and cause of Black Civil Rights.  It is not.  Such a claim is easily disprovable under Social Compact Theory under the law.  Please note:

 “The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold aspect, first the securing to the people of certain unchangeable rights[118] and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined fields.” DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A 2d 724.

What DuPont alludes to, as what is clearly iterated throughout Social Compact Theory, is that under the Natural Rights of man, and also under the common law and our Constitutions, that they have established UNCHANGING, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND.  These laws are immutable, and cannot be changed.

 “The State and its municipalities are prohibited from violating substantive rights.” (Owen v. City, 445 US 622 1980) Additionally, “The state cannot diminish the rights of people.” (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516).

See also:

“Statutes and rulings that infringe upon fundamental rights are presumptively unconstitutional, and a substantial burden rests on the state, not citizen, to prove its case.

It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution it is presumptively unconstitutional.” Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980).

See also:

That if a statute[119] is part of an unlawful scheme to reach a prohibited result…the statute must fail…”  McCallen v. Massachusetts, 27 U.S. 620, 630

“If a law has no other purpose than to chill assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, it is patently unconstitutional.”   Shapiro v. Thompson, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 394 U.S. 618, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969).

If we are attempting the rule of human reasoning here, that we must purview the Maxims of Law which address this legal issue.  We do this, in hopes to obtain a reading of what the common usages throughout history state upon this subject, so that we may be more readily apprised as to how our courts should rule in this matter:

4.       If any person or persons shall erect or form, or shall endeavor to erect or form, any new and independent government within the boundaries of this commonwealth, as described in the charter, and settled between this state and the state of Virginia, such person or persons, being thereof legally convicted in any court of oyer and terminer, shall be adjudged guilty of high treason.  Read’s Dig. 374, 1 Dall, Rep. 37.

5.       If any person or persons, shall set up any notice, written or printed, calling or requesting the people to meet together, for the design or purpose of forming a new and independent government, as aforesaid, such person or persons, and all others who shall assemble themselves for that purpose, in consequence of such notice, shall be adjudged guilty of high treason.  Read’s Dig. 375.  1 Dall. Rep. 37.

6.       If any person or persons, at a meeting of the people convened for the purposes aforesaid, or for any other purpose, shall maliciously and advisedly recommend or desire them to erect or form any new government in any part of this state, independent of the present, or shall read to them any new form of a constitution, with design to induce them to adopt the same, as new and independent constitution, every such person or persons, being thereof legally convicted, shall be adjudged guilty of high treason.  Read’s Dig. 273.  1 Dall. Rep. 37.[120]

What we are required to take from this, is that indeed, the courts and other branches of government are now implementing and enforcing a new and foreign government and set of laws which do not align with, nor square with, and which are in direct opposition to our form of free-American government.  This miscegenation of law, being clothed under color of authority, is a breach of good behavior, a violation of each government individual’s oath of office, and is an in-fact treason against the American society:

“But treason is a crime against an entire community, and it is the highest crime that an individual can commit against a community or a body politic, of which he is a member.”  It is therefore, a political offense; and as such, it ever has been and still is to be regarded.

Such being the nature and character of treason, from the principles and structure of American Government, its object is, generally, if not always, a change either in the form of government or the administration of it.[121]

Both the special interests and liberal factions propounding the overturning of our fundamental laws, in order to replace it, with “something else” (e.g. a new human understanding of law, brought under the penumbra of the laws of human reason, pronounced, not by God, but by man), is in direct contradistinction to established law and reason:

 He who commands that law should rule may thus be regarded as commanding that God and reason alone should rule; he who commands that a man should rule adds the character of the beast.  Appetite has that character; and high spirit, too, perverts the holders of office, even when they are the best of men.  Law [as the pure voice of God and reason] may thus be defined as “Reason free from all passion.”[122]



MAXIM:  An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.

2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury. Terms do Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.

3. The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to ascertain how the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.

4. The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous. 2 Inst

[Cited from:  Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, © 1856, 6th Ed., Child’s & Peterson, 124 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA.]

Statuta pro publico oommodo late interpretanturJenk. Cent. 21. Statutes made for the public good ought to be liberally construed.  Cited from:  Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., © 1910, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., p. 1107.

 A communi observantia non est recedendum.  “There should be no departure from common observance or usage.” Co. Litt. 186.

Aequum et bonum, est lex legum. “What is good and equal, is the law of laws.” Hob. 224.

Argumentum ab impossibili plurmum valet in lege. An argument deduced from authority great avails in law. Co. Litt. 92.

Argumentum ab authoritate est fortissimum in lege. An argument drawn from authority is the strongest in law. Co. Litt. 254.

Construction legis non facit injuriam. The construction of law works not an injury. Co. Litt. 183; Broom’s Max. 259.

Duas uxores eodem tempore habere non potest. It is not lawful to have two wives at one time. Inst. 1, 10, 6.

Error juris nocet. Error of law is injurious. See 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3828

Ex malificio non oritur contractus.  “A contract cannot arise out of an act radically wrong and illegal.” Broom’s Max. 851.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. False in one thing, false in everything. 1 Sumn. 356.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum. Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall.

Hominum caus… jus constitutum est. Law is established for the benefit of man.

 Interpretare et concordare leges legibus estoptimus interpretandi modus. To interpret and reconcile laws so that they harmonize is the best mode of construction. 8 Co. 169.

 Ipsae legis cupiunt ut jure regantur. The laws themselves require that they should be governed by right. Co. Litt. 174.

 Judex bonus nihil ex arbitrio suo faciat, nec propositione domesticae voluntatis, sed juxta legis et jura pronunciet.  “A good judge should do nothing from his own judgment, or from the dictates of his private wishes; but he should pronounce according to law and justice.” 7 co. 27.

Jura sanguinis nullo jure civili dirimi possunt. The right of blood and kindred cannot be destroyed by any civil law. Dig. 50, 17, 9; Bacon’s Max. Reg. 11.

Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant.  “Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary.” 2 Rol. R. 410; 11 Co. 626, 630

Legis constructio non facit injuriam.  “The construction of law does no wrong.” Co. Litt. 183.

Lex est norma recti.  “Law is a rule of right.”

Lex est sanctio sancta, jubens honesta, et prohibens contraria. Law is a scared sanction, commanding what is right and prohibiting the contrary. 2 Co. Inst. 587.

Lex nemini facit injuriam. The law does wrong to no one.

Lex nemini operatur iniquum, nemini facit injuriam. The law never works an injury, or does him a wrong. jenk. Cent. 22.

Lex non deficit in justitia exibenda. The law does not fail in showing justice.

Lexspectat naturae ordinem. The law regards the order of nature. Co. Litt. 197.

Melius est recurrere quam malo currere. It is better to recede than to proceed in evil. 4 Inst. 176.

Multitudo imperitorum perdit curiam. A multitude of ignorant practitioners destroys a court. 2 Co. Inst. 219.

Natura appetit perfectum, ita et lex. Nature aspires to perfection, and so does the law. Hob. 144.

Natura non facit saltum, ita nec lex. Nature makes no leap, nor does the law. Co. Litt. 238.

Nemo ex alterius facto praegravari debet. No man ought to be burdened in consequence of another’s act.

No man is presumed to do anything against nature. 22 Vin. Ab. 154.

Non faciat malum, ut inde veniat bonum. You are not to do evil that good may come of it. 11 Co. 74.


Novum judicium non dat novum jus, sed declarat antiquum. A new judgment does not make a new law, but declares the old. 10 Co. 42.

Periculosum est res novas et inusitatas inducere. It is dangerous to introduce new and dangerous things. Co. Litt. 379.

Ordine placitandi servato, servatur et jus. The order of pleading being preserved, the law is preserved. Co. Litt. 363.

Quae contra rationem juris introducta sunt, non debent trahi in consequentiam. Things introduced contrary to the reason of the law, ought not to be drawn into precedents. 12 Co. 75.

Quae praeter consuetudinem et morem majorum fiunt, neque placent, necque recta videntur. What is done contrary to the custom of our ancestors, neither pleases nor appears right. 4 Co. 78.

Quae rerum naturƒ prohibentur, nullƒ lege confirmata sunt. What is prohibited in the nature of things, cannot be confirmed by law. Finch’s Law, 74.

Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347.

Ratihabitiio mandato aequiparatur. Ratification is equal to a command. Dig. 46, 3, 12, 4.

Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex. Reason is the soul of the law; the reason of the law being changed, the law is also changed.

Ratio est radius divini luminis. Reason is a ray of divine light. Co. Litt. 232.

Ratio et auctoritas duo clarisima mundi limina. Reason and authority are the two brightest lights in the world. 4 Co. Inst. 320.

Ratio legis est anima legis. The reason of the law is the soul of the law.

Res est misera ubi jus est vagam et invertumIt is a miserable state of things where the law is vague and uncertain. 2 Salk. 512.

Statutum affirmativum non derogat communi legi.  “An affirmative statute does not take from the common law.” Jenk. Cent. 24.

Ubicunque est injuria, ibi damnum sequitur. Whereever there is a wrong, there damages follow. 10 Co. 116.

Qui non obstat quod obstare potest facere videtur. He who does not prevent what he can, seems to commit the thing. 2 Co. Inst. 146.

Qui non prohibit quod prohibere potest assentire videtur. He who does not forbid what he can forbid, seems to assent. 2 Inst. 305.

Qui non propulsat injuriam quando potest, infertHe who does not repel a wrong when he can, induces it. Jenk. Cent. 271.

Qui potest et debet vetare, jubet. He who can and ought to forbid, and does not, commands.

Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.

Qnicquid est contra normam recti est injuria. Whatever is against the rule of right, is a wrong. 3 Buls. 313.

Quod contra legem fit, pro infecto habetur. What is done contrary to the law, is considered as not done. 4 Co. 31. No one can derive any advantage from such an act.

Quod contra juris rationem receptum est, non est producendum ad consequentias. What has been admitted against the spirit of the law, ought not to be heard. Dig. 50, 17, 141.

Quod initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere. Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin. Dig. 50, 17, 29.

Quod per me non possum, nec per alium. What I cannot do in person, I cannot do by proxy. 4 Co. 24.

Paci sunt maxime contraria, vis et injuria. Force and wrong are greatly contrary to peace. Co. Litt. 161.


Nul ne doit s’enrichir aux depens des autres. No one ought to enrich himself at the expense of others.

Peccata contra naturam sunt gravissima. Offences against nature are the heaviest. 3 Co. Inst. 20.

Pater is est quem nuptiae demonstrant. The father is he whom the marriage points out. 1 Bl. Com. 446; 7 mart. N. S. 548, 553; Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 273, 304, 322.

Privilegium est quasi privata lex. A privilege is, as it were, a private law. 2 Buls. 8.

Pueri sunt de sanguine parentum, sed pater et mater non sunt de sanguine puerorum. Children are of the blood of their parents, but the father and mother are not the blood of their children. 3 Co. 40.


 The state and conditions of marriage, unlike many other social institutions…is a vested property right, both collectively for society, and also for the individual.  Thereby, any diminishing or subrogation of that right by any branch or ordinate or agency of government, including the Supreme Court of the United States; is an unlawful takings of private property, a violation of law under Amendment the Fifth to the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791.

 And it is to be observed, that it is holden for an inconvenience, that any of the maximes of the law should be broken, though a private man suffer losse; for that by infringing of a maxime, not onely a generall prejudice to many, but in the end a publike incertainty and confusion to all would follow. Section 152b

The supreme court, like its lower cousins; is attempting to construct a new Hadrian’s Wall—but instead of keeping the uncivilized out; it appears that they are letting them in—and keeping us from obtaining the protections of the good and wholesome laws.  What they are erecting, is an abomination of both the American form of government and our fundamental American way of life, and replacing it with the more lower, and ruder laws of animals and slaves.  Social experiments, do not iterate the clear and concise established law.  However; in this instant—it appears that both our laws, and the underpinnings and support of Western Civilization itself, are being summarily overturned by a court, which has turned its back on fundamental and unchanging rights of each and every Citizen.

 “This Government…has certainly some power to protect its own Citizens in their own country.  Allegiance and protection are reciprocal rights.”  Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, at page 1757 (1866).

Now this citation is a glaring one in this matter.  In Hollingsworth, it was Justice KENNEDY, who maintained the pleading cries to ‘protect’ the children, alluding within the Hollingsworth oral argument transcript, [See:  Hollingsworth, lines 9-16, page 22],  he blathers that:

 JUSTICE KENNEDY:  “On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal  — what could be a legal injury, and that’s the voice of these children.  There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief,[123] that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full [legal] status.  The voice of those children is important to this case, don’t you think?”

Yeah, but how about those moral children who correctly rebuke and refuse to live within their own parents homosexual perversions?….who protects these children Mr. KENNEDY?  Those good children who have suffered through the homosexual perversion of their parents, flies in the face of good conduct and morals—which has led to judges upholding immorality and unclean lifestyles and forced children to live with such illegalities against their wishes.  Good children, who are uncoerced by such Gay parents, have been errantly told by the courts that they have no First Amendment rights, nor secured liberties to uphold their own morality, nor their religion, in the light of perversion?!?  Where is their protections and their “voices” to simply state and declare their feelings for what is inherently and fundamentally wrong?  Who protects those children’s rights to the good and wholesome laws??  Please note within but one case transcript which exemplifies these facts:

 The trial court further restricted R.W.’s visitation with the children by requiring that the visits occur outside the presence of N.L., who is R.W.’s sexual partner. R.W. and N.L. have lived together in a lesbian relationship since November 1994. During the pendency of the divorce action, R.W.’s children also lived in the home with R.W. and N.L. The evidence indicated that, during this time, N.L. became an active disciplinarian of the children. N.L.’s disciplinary methods were sometimes inappropriate. She threatened to deprive R.W.’s daughter of visitation with her father, as a form of punishment. The mother even admitted before the court that she personally would not choose N.L.’s methods to discipline her children, yet she continued to allow her sexual partner to punish the children harshly. Thus, the trial court could have found from the evidence presented that the children’s best interest required that they have no contact with N.L.

…. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering the effects on the children of their mother’s ongoing lesbian relationship. Both women are active in the homosexual community. They frequent gay bars and have discussed taking the children to a homosexual church. Although they do not engage in intimate sexual contact in front of the children, they openly display affection in the children’s presence. Already, the children appear to have been detrimentally affected by their mother’s relationship and by their contacts with her sexual partner. Evidence was presented indicating that, after moving in with R.W. and N.L., the children began using inappropriate and vulgar language and required psychiatric counseling. The mother herself admits that her daughter began having problems with manipulation and lying. The evidence showed that this child also experiences problems dealing with anger and that she sometimes acts violently.

Even without this evidence that the children have been adversely affected by their mother’s relationship, the trial court would have been justified in restricting R.W.’s visitation, in order to limit the children’s exposure to their mother’s lesbian lifestyle. When a noncustodial parent is involved in a continuing homosexual relationship, restrictions on that parent’s visitation rights have been widely held to be proper. Caroll J. Miller, Annotation, “Visitation Rights of Homosexual or Lesbian Parent,” 36 A.L.R.4th 997 (1985). Restrictions such as those at issue here are common tools used to shield a child from the harmful effects of a parent’s illicit sexual relationships– heterosexual or homosexual. Diane M. Allen, Annotation, “Propriety of Provision of Custody or Visitation Order Designed to Insulate Child from Parent’s Extramarital Sexual Relationships,” 40 A.L.R.4th 812 (1985). Moreover, the conduct inherent in lesbianism is illegal in Alabama. Ala.Code 1975, Section 13A-6-65(a)(3). R.W., therefore, is continually engaging in conduct that violates the criminal law of this state. Exposing her children to such a lifestyle, one that is illegal under the laws of this state and immoral in the eyes of most of its citizens, could greatly traumatize them. Given both the demonstrable harm to these children that has already occurred and the potential for harm through continued exposure to their mother’s lifestyle, we cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing these limitations on R.W.’s visitation.[124]

There are a host of other cases, where children of the Gay and Lesbian parents complain bitterly about the Gay lifestyle, yet receive no “court protection” from this abnormality, yet; the court recognizes both the deleterious effects of such homosexual relationships, and more importantly, such as in this case, that such actions, the homosexual parent is “continually engaging in conduct that violates the criminal law of this state.”  We now have courts upholding, and considering this stupidity as the rule of law???

Again, where are these children’s Supreme Court protections, against what the state clearly defines as ‘criminal law’ of the state?

We must consider under the modality of this Gay issue that this is not a revolution, propounded by ‘we the people;’ but it is rather, is a most violent usurpation of our laws, submitted by people without legal standing, criminals as defined under law, a special interest with unclean hands—violating and overturning the Natural Rights and unchanging fundamental laws of Western Civilization itself—and doing so by a special interest, which is unclean and whose lifestyle abrogates the clean and wholesome, and whose aberrant lifestyle, places us all, at a most dangerous risk…

What, then, is this “right of the people” (or of a majority of them) to “alter their government,” which the advocates of conventional omnipotence invoke to support their views?  Is it the right to resolve themselves into a “state of nature,” to “scatter the elements of government around them,” and to ” stand upon the foundations of society” — “to conjure up chaos?” Surely not.

Of course, it is true that many factional movements have succeeded in overturning the government. But they have been ratified by subsequent events, which made up for the illegality of their beginnings. The spontaneous governments of the American colonies succeeded when force triumphed over England. The “People’s” government of Rhode Island failed, and the Union government of West Virginia succeeded, because of force, applied by the Federal authorities.

Revolutionary conventions … are not peculiar to any country, but have existed wherever, and will continue occasionally to exist as long as, the ultimate and eternal right of revolution remains — a right which, it is said, depends solely upon the power to successfully invoke it. . Braxton, VII “Va. Law Beg.,” 79..[125]

Again, this is not an alteration of our form of government, it is a complete overturning of the fundamental form of society, and its good and wholesome laws.

Many, many people are having a hard time arguing against this Gay Marriage issue, due to the fact, that they are kind, common and non-confrontational respectful people.  Somehow, (just as in the case of the three and seven year olds noted above), they fully know and understand that Gay Marriage is wrong, but they cannot legally articulate it.  I submit this white paper on the subject, so they may do so.

To further enlighten our brethren, we must discuss CUVIER’S LAW OF CORRELATIONS.  This doctrine, espouses the scientific principle that in all systems, each part and element of that system, must be in unison with the whole system itself.   It recognizes, that you cannot have a system, which a singular part cannot be in disunion with the whole.

This discovery, was discovered by Jean Leopold Nicolas Frederic Cuvier, who was a scientist studying classification of the animal kingdom.  During that, he discovered his Law’s of Correlations, which has become a standard, throughout Fractal Analysis, Astronomy, Paleontology, Calculus, Structural Analysis, & etc.   There is virtually no scientific discipline which does not incorporate this fundamental truth within every application:

“Fortunately comparative anatomy, when thoroughly understood, enables us to surmount all these difficulties, as a careful application of its principles instructs us in the correspondences and dissimilarities of the forms of organized bodies of different kinds, by which each may be rigorously ascertained from almost every fragment of its various parts and organs.

“Every organized individual forms an entire system of its own, all the parts of which naturally correspond, and concur to produce a certain definite purpose, by reciprocal reaction, or by combining towards the same end. Hence none of these separate parts can change their forms without a corresponding change in the other parts of the same animal, and consequently each of these parts, taken separately, indicates all the other parts to which it has belonged. Thus, as I have elsewhere shown, if the viscera of an animal are so organized as only to be fitted for the digestion of recent flesh, it is also requisite that the jaws should be so constructed as to fit them for devouring prey; the claws must be constructed for seizing and tearing it to pieces; the teeth for cutting and dividing its flesh; the entire system of the limbs, or organs of motion, for pursuing and overtaking it; and the organs of sense for discovering it at a distance. Nature must also have endowed the brain of the animal with instincts sufficient for concealing itself and for laying plans to catch its necessary victims.

So, if we view government as a system, and that each element of that system: e.g., our voting system, our media outlet’s, our educational system, & etc., conform to the total of the whole; it would be hard to dispute, in fact, impossible to dispute that the institution of marriage is at ground-zero of our political and social system.  Society needs the institution of marriage in which to promulgate, and more importantly; establish the next generation, and those collateral institutions which depend upon the institution of marriage, in which to support the whole American society.

If this is true, then we must ask:  Does the implementation of the Gay and Homosexual lifestyle, become a part of the American system of the whole American society?

Clearly, it is not, nor can it be, under Cuvier’s Law of Correlations.

Cuvier’s Law of Correlation is not only commonly recognized by every Citizen, but it was a major recognition by Alex de Tocqueville, whom noted these same principles within his watershed Democracy in America, that comparative anatomy of the American system of government, when he noted:

 “The Americans had the chances of birth in their favor, and their forefathers imported that equality of conditions into the country whence the democratic republic had very naturally taken its rise.  Nor was this all they did; for besides this republican condition of society, the early settlers bequeathed to their descendants those customs, manners, and opinions which contribute most to the success of a republican form of government.  When I reflect upon the consequences of this primary circumstance, methinks I see the destiny of America embodied in the first Puritan who landed on those shores, just as the human race was represented by the first man.”[126]

These two Supreme Court Homosexual and Gay cases Hollingsworth and Windsor, if ruled on and upheld in deference to our American Civilization by the Supreme Court, will destroy the American civilization itself under simple application of Cuvier’s Law of Correlations.  One not only look at to the incredible health and safety risks the supreme court is dealing with in this case, but we must also look at our established and fundamental laws iterated within this document by the Maxims of Law, Constitutional prohibitions, Natural Law prohibitions, and stare decisis case law.  Indeed, if the supreme court abrogates its responsibility to defend marriage,  and instead, allows Gay and Homosexual Marriage, then; society is going to be left with taking a chain saw out and literally sawing away all of the well-settled and established fundamental rules of law of this nation already within our lawbooks.  It will take years to re-write both the laws, maxims of law, constitutions, Natural Law approbation, not to mention the Law Dictionaries and even student lawbooks, throughout this nation, in order to come into conformance with the new “anti-Law” Gay Marriage supreme court ruling’s being attempted within these two separate case decisions.

Does that comport with Cuvier’s Law of Correlations?  Of course it does not!  It is an identity: that the application of Gays and Lesbians to be allowed the right of Marriage, is not a revolution, but a complete undermining and usurpation of the good and wholesome laws which not only defines our system of government, but upholds and protects that system of government.  This one element of our American system, if allowed in by any diseased Supreme Court decision; shall put the whole system out-of-balance, with the whole American system of government.  It will be like placing a match into a gasoline tank.  Again, under Cuvier’s Law of Correlations, only one system is going to survive.  The gas or fire—but not both.

We may now start to see why Cuvier’s Law of Correlations is so important.  It is because previous generations of researchers have recognized, that the Gay and Homosexual agenda, is not only in direct contradistinction to our form of government; but it is also against all governments.  Implementation of sexual anarchy, pederasty, homosexuality, and the destruction of marriage, is in fact, the last and final stage of the existence of any society.  If we look to a host of scientists, from Bachoven to Frued, to Carl Zimmerman, and a host of scientist and anthropologist in-between, it has been well-recognized, that all civilizations rise in a Patriarchy (sexual regulation) and destroy themselves in a matriarchy (sexual deregulation).  There have been no exceptions to this rule, since the inception of human civilization:

 “Mankind has known intuitively for at least [six thousand] years that indiscriminate sexual activity [sexual anarchy] represented both an individual and corporate threat to survival.  The wisdom of those years has now been documented.  Anthropologist J.D. Unwin conducted an exhaustive study of the eighty-eight civilizations which have existed in the history of the world, each civilization has reflected a similar life cycle, beginning with a strict code of sexual conduct [Patriarchy], and ending with the demand for complete ‘freedom to express individual passion.’  Unwin reports that every society which extended sexual permissiveness to its people was soon to perishThere have been no exceptions.”[127]

This scholarship was also developed by Dr. Carl Zimmerman, who noted that all civilizations follow, what is regularly known as the Bell Curve, described by four phases which document a civilizations rise and decline:


Currently, we have a supreme court and state Legislatures, making law which solidifies and assures this nations destruction by the mere consideration of Gay marriage.  They are greasing the rails to put us into the Matriarchal order of sexual anarchy, and collapse.  Again, there have been no exceptions to this rule for the last ten (10) thousand years—that such a society—will in fact, collapse.

Again, I must drive this point home, that under Cuvier’s Law of Correlation, all parts and elements of a system must go together, to be in conformance and alignment with the whole system.  Gay Marriage and homosexuality are a complete abrogation of those scientific principles, and no matter how much the court and legislatures huff, and puff, to make what is in violation to the fundamental laws—such abrogation’s of law and reason cannot comport and be in consonance with the principle—that their special applications in violation of the organic law of this nation, is not concomitant with our system of free-American society.  Under this principle alone, Gay Marriage must not only be expunged from all courts throughout this nation, the principle must be openly condemned by all organs of government.

Gay marriage is simply illegal.  It is time the Supreme Court only state what the law is, not what they, and their special interest would like it to be.

 If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right. — Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.

What the court is fulminating here, are laws which set our American society at a constant state of war.  Literally, if these applications of Gays and Lesbian’s are upheld to include them in the condition of marriage, a mixed war shall issue in this matter, which will set a people apart from its own government.  We shall be in a fundamental state of disunion:

 Mixed War.  “A mixed war is one which is made on one side by public authority, and on the other by mere private persons.”  People v. McLeod, 1 Hill (N.Y.) 377, 415, 37 Am.Dec. 328.[128]

Therefore, by and through these legal reasonings, we must rebuke the Supreme Court’s attempt to make what is not law, the law of the land.  We must disavow these things, and hold our public agents and those whom serve us to a higher standard of law.  We must force them to uphold to each element of our Constitutional system which asserts the ‘good and wholesome’ laws, of which the public themselves can depend.  To do otherwise, would not only be an usurpation of law, but also a fundamental change in our laws, under our form of American government; to our own detriment and destruction.  We must not allow our enemies to erect this Hadrian’s Wall, and bifurcate and separate this country’s laws, with a miscegenation of sick and diseased law, which are inimical to both our, and our childrens’ interests.  We must keep these barbarian’s out.

 —  30  —

—  END  —

[1] “(Hadrian) was the first to build a wall 80 miles long to separate the Romans from the barbarians”  Cited from:  Unknown. “11.2”. Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Vita Hadriani.

[2] Cited from:  The End of Western Civilization, from:  A Study of Our DeclineAn Explanation of Civilization Inspired by Observation of Australians in the Late Twentieth and Early Twenty-First Century, by Phillip Atkinson, May, 2012, at:

[3] Consider this legal maxim of law:

Qui in utero est, pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur. He who is in the womb, is considered as born, whenever it is for his benefit.

[4] NOTE:  Contemporary court case rulings such as this are being proactively and forcibly removed from the courts and governments lexicon, by and through their wilful acts and/or omissions of “Judicial Imperialism” which denies the foundational rule of law understood within the Ten Commandments which is in direct opposition to these evils.  This is in direct violation to the concise rule of law, public will, public policy, morality, as a substantive and direct harm and egregious damage to “we the people.

[5] In California, it is the rule of decision in all our courts, to wit:

California Civil Code Section 22.2:  “Common law of England; rule of decision.  The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.”

[6] The controlling maxim of law which defines these facts is:

Jus est ars boni et aequi. “Law is the science of what is good and evil.” Dig. 1,1, 1, l.

[7] Please take judicially notice and place on the record, the Constitution of California, ratified by ‘we the people,’ eighth and ninth words within its PREAMBLE, invoke “Almighty God.”

We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

[8] From:  The Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of California,  and Related Documents, 1993-1994, California State Senate [Rick Rollins, Secretary], p.13.

[9] This is shown in the Texas March 2, 1836 Declaration of Independence, where it is proffered:

“It denies us the right of worshipping the Almighty according to dictates of our own conscience, by the support of a national religion calculated to promote the temporal interests of its human functionaries rather than the glory of the true and living God.”

[10] “It is held to be a settled Rule, that our courts cannot take notice of any title to land not derived from the State or Colonial government, and duly verified by patent.” -4 Johns. Rep. 163. Jackson v. Waters, 12 Johns. Rep. 365. S.P.

[11] Please reference: “(T)he right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.” From: Rights of the Colonists, (1772).

[12] Otherwise known as the “Union of Several States.”

[13] “This rule of law in the courts of the common law reflected the Christian doctrine of God in at least two distinct ways.  First, civil justice mirrored God’s in its commitment to law.  The law established the standard the breach of which supported a claim for redress, itself governed by law in its process and remedy.  Justice is a matter of judgment in applying and vindicating the law.  But, second, this method supposed that law existed before courts had occasion to declare and apply it.  To some degree, common law is the custom of the realm, the conventions from time immemorial.  But to a great degree, common law is the law of nature, the law prescribed by God Himself for His creation.”  [Fn41– Cf. James R. Stoner, Jr., Common Law and Liberal Theory 19 (1992) (stating that common law authority Sir Edward Coke “apparently takes it for granted that divine authority lies behind the law.”).]  From:  The Common Law and the Religious Foundations of the Rule of Law, by Craig A. Stern, April 26, 2003, The Philadelphia Society National Meeting, New Orleans.

[14] MAGNA CHARTA.  The great charter.  The name of a charter (or constitutional enactment) granted by King John of England to the barons, at Runnymede, on June 15, 1215, and afterwards, with some alterations, confirmed in parliament by Henry III, and Edward I.  This charter is justly regarded as the foundation of English constitutional liberty.  Among its thirty-eight chapters are found provision for regulating the administration of justice, defining the temporal and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, securing the personal liberty of the subject and his rights of property, and the limits of taxation, and for preserving the liberties and privileges of the church.  Magna Charta is so called, partly to distinguish it from the Charta de Foresta, which was granted about the same time, and partly by reason of its own transcendent importance.  From:  Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, ã 1968, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., p. 1103.

[15] (citation omitted).

[16] Whose preamble does invoke our Christian God: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

[17] LAW OF NATIONS:  5. Among  the Romans, there were two sorts of laws of nations,

namely, the  primitive, called  primarium, and the other known by the name of secundarium. The primarium, that is to say, primitive or more ancient, is properly the only law of nations which human reason suggests  to men;   as the worship of God, the respect and submission which  children have for their parents, the attachment which citizens have for their country, the good faith which ought to be  the soul  of every  agreement, and  the like.  The law  of nations called  secundarium, are  certain usages  which have been established among  men, from time to time, as they have been felt to be necessary.  Ayl. Pand. B. 1, t. 2, p. 6.  Bouvier’s Law Dictionary,  L1 : Page 61 of 125

[18] Fifty states in total, plus the “District of Columbia,” in Washington D.C.

[19] The State of Louisiana being the only aberration to this fact, which somewhat comes under the French Napoleonic Civil Code.  However note:  “It [the U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.  The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the Common Law.”   United States vs. Wong Kim, Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456

[20] “The United States of America, as its name implies, is a union of states. In 1868, after the Civil War, the United States Supreme Court wrote, in the case of Texas vs. White, that the United States Constitution “…looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.”[1]

 Iowa is a part of this union of states, having joined in 1846. The implication of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is that while states are indestructible and independent, they are not totally sovereign due to the authority granted to the federal government. The federal Constitution outlines certain powers to be exercised by the federal government, and others to be reserved to the states.”

[1]  Forrest McDonald, A Constitutional History of the United States (Florida: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Inc, 1982), p. 141

[21] James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments §11 (1785, reprinted in Everson v. Board of Education, 330, U.S. 1, 64) Rutledge, J., dissenting.

[22] The Judicial Process, Text, Materials and Cases, Second Edition,  by Ruggero J. Aldisert, © 1976; West Publishing Co., 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul, MN  55164-0526, 1-800-328-9352; ISBN 0-314-06776-0, p.10.

[23] FOOTNOTE meaning stated by Blackstone follows:  “Quod naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, vocatur jus gentium.”  That which natural reason has established among all men is called the “law of nations.”  1 Bl.Comm. 43; Dig. 1, 1, 9: Inst. 1, 2, 1.  From: Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, ã 1968, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., p. 1419  From:  Tucker’s Blackstone is Copyright © 1997-2003, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND,.BOOK THE FIRST., Part Second, of the Nature of Laws in General, by Sir William Blackstone.

[24] MAJESTY. Properly  speaking, this  term can be applied only to God, for it signifies that which surpasses all things in grandeur and superiority. But it is used to kings and emperors, as a title of honor.  It sometimes  means power, as when we say, the majesty of the people. See, Wolff, § 998.   From:  Bouvier’s Law Dictionary: M1 : Page 7 of 202

[25] According to John Locke, “The great chief end therefore, of Men’s uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.” He also said, “Whenever [rulers] endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience,…” — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1690.

[26] This mandate is also stated in case precedent.  In U.S. v. Olmstead, 227 U.S. 438 (1928) this court said: “Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.  In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.  Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher.  For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example.  Crime is contagious.  If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law.  It invites every man to become a law unto himself.  It invites anarchy..”

[27] Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam.  “The act of God does injury to no one.” 2 Bl.Comm. 122. A thing which is inevitable by the act of God, which no industry can avoid, nor policy prevent, will not be construed to the prejudice of any person in whom there was no laches.”  Broom, Max. 230.  [Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, ã 1933, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., p. 47.]

[28] Cited by Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle 127 (Ernest Barker trans., 1971-2) (III, xi, § 19; 1282b) (footnote omitted), and affirmed by John Adams when he wrote for the First Continental Congress, “We the Congress of the United States adopt the common law, as the rule of law, and as the law of highest reason.” [paraphrased from the author’s memory (citation omitted).]

[29] From:  The Law, by Frederic Bastiat, p. 5-6, as quoted in 16 Am.Jur.2d p. 356.

[30] Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, ã 1933, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn. P. 1297.

[31] Yet again, there is a whole Three-Card Monty game going on here with the supreme court in reference to Article III (Constitutional) powers.  The reader is urged to reference the seminal cases of Mookini v. U.S., and Balzac v. Puerto Rico, to wit:


First, the "United  States District Court" is a territorial court (Balzac v. Puerto Rico  (1922)), where the "District Court of the United States" is the first- level Article III court of the United States (Mookini v. United  States (1938)). Second, the "United States" is the proper principal  of interest in courts of the United States other than territorial  courts, where the "United States of America, ss, President of the  United States" is the principal of interest in insular possession  territorial courts (see judicial provisions for Puerto Rico & the  Virgin Islands in Title 48 of the United States Code).


…. The "United States of America" currently identified as principal in  Federal civil and criminal prosecution is a political coalition or  compact of insular possessions of the United States. ..."If court is  created under Article 3 of the federal Constitution, the court is a  constitutional court. U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3. ..."The words 'district  court of the United States' commonly describe constitutional courts  created under Article III of the Constitution, not the legislative  courts which have long been the courts of the Territories." - Mookini  v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201, 205, 58 S.Ct. 543, 545, 82 L.Ed. 748. (See  also Longshoremen v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 324 U.S. 237; Reynolds v.  U.S., 98 U.S. 145, 154; McAlister v. U.S., 141 U.S. 174; U.S. v.  Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163.

[32] This is clearly admitted by Counsel SRINIVASAN, who states within the Windsor oral argument, in lines 15-20, on page 29, to wit:

 “The Executive Branch is representing the sovereign interests of the United States. And those interests would include the interests of the Congress that enacted the law, the interests of the President that signed it, and the interests of the Judiciary in pronouncing on what the law is.”

Again, as stated here by Mr. SRINIVASAN; that the only power of the judiciary, is to only state what the law is—not what it should be, or what they attempt to ‘interpret’ it as.

[33] To decide otherwise, would have each branch of government engaged with a war with the other two in formulating and deciding what law is.  This is not the function of any branch of government, and would set this nation upon a ‘constant state of war’ with each branch asserting and only recognizing what law they chose to recognize.

[34] W.H. Hutt (b. 1899, d. 1988)  He was Dean of the Faculty of Commerce at the University of Capetown in 1931. Hutt was a “a classical liberal economist” who attacked Keynesian economics.

[35] Stated in another more pragmatic way:

 “I maintain, therefore, that the security of the citizen against such arbitrary legislation rests upon the broader and more solid ground of natural rights, and is not wholly dependent upon those negatives, upon legislature formerly contained in the constitution.  It can never be admitted as a just attribute of sovereignty in a government, to take the property of one citizen and bestow it upon another.  The exercise of such power is incompatible with the nature and object of all government is instituted and is a subservice of the fundamental principles upon which all free governments are organized.”  White v. White, 5 Barb 474, 484, 485 (1849).

[36] The controlling maxim of law states:

 Legibus sumptis disinentibus, lege naturae utendum est.When laws imposed by the state fail, we must act by the law of nature.” 2 Roll. R. 298.

[37] de jure: (Adjective): 1.  By right: according to law.

de jure recognition of the new government.”

(Adverb): 1.  By law, conforming to the law.

[Cited from:  WordWeb].

[38] “It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.” See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Harlan dissenting.

[39]  de facto: (Adjective): 1.  Existing in fact whether with lawful authority or not.

de facto segregation is as real as segregation imposed by law.”

“a de facto state of war.”

(Adverb):  1.  In reality or fact.

“the result was, de facto, a one-party system”


[40] What Civil Rights are, is well-settled law and well-defined throughout the law:

 “But civil rights are to be distinguished from natural rights, which are such as appertain originally and essentially to man – such as are inherent in his nature, and which he enjoys as a man, independent of any act on his side.” 14 C.J.S. Civil Rights §2, p. 1160, quoted in M.L.B. v. W.R.B., 457 S.W.2d 465, 466. See also 195 Cal.App.2d 503, 16 Cal.Rptr. 77, 91;  Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 519, 527.

[41] Note that Lord Coke himself set up this legal declination, as to all earthly power (de facto power) residing in the King (i.e. “Government authority”).  In other words, all human authority comes under both God and the Law:

 Quod Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo et lege.

“The king himself shall be under no man, but only God and the Law.  The quotation translates: ‘The king ought not to be beneath any man, but beneath God and the law.’”  Prohibitions del Roy, 12 Coke’s Reports 65.

[42] Reference:

 STATUTE. The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution; an act of the legislature.

2. This word is used in contradistinction to the common law. Statutes acquire their force from the time of their passage unless otherwise provided. 7 Wheat. R. 104: 1 Gall . R. 62.

3. It is a general rule that when the provision of a statute is general, everything which is necessary to make such provision effectual is supplied by the common law; Co. Litt. 235; 2 Inst. 222; Bac. Ab. h. t. B; and when a power is given by statute, everything necessary for making it effectual is given by implication: quando le aliquid concedit, concedere videtur et id pe quod devenitur ad aliud. 12 Co. 130, 131 2 Inst. 306.

Cited from: Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, © 1856, 6th Ed., Child’s & Peterson, 124 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA.

[43] This is well-settled law, that the people, not government authority, are the only and true power, under our form of free-American government:

“The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government.”  Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943.

See also:

“In this State as well as in all republics, it is not the Legislature, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme – but the people – and to suppose that they may violate the fundamental law, is, as has been most eloquently expressed, to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master, that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of delegated power may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”   Waring vs. Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, Page 93.

[44] Under the ubiquitous: “I’m just doing my job, fella.”

[45] Declared more decisively:

 “This rule of law in the courts of the common law reflected the Christian doctrine of God in at least two distinct ways.  First, civil justice mirrored God’s in its commitment to law.  The law established the standard the breach of which supported a claim for redress, itself governed by law in its process and remedy.  Justice is a matter of judgment in applying and vindicating the law.  But, second, this method supposed that law existed before courts had occasion to declare and apply it.  To some degree, common law is the custom of the realm, the conventions from time immemorial.  But to a great degree, common law is the law of nature, the law prescribed by God Himself for His creation.”  [FN41]— Cf. James R. Stoner, Jr., Common Law and Liberal Theory 19 (1992) (stating that common law authority Sir Edward Coke “apparently takes it for granted that divine authority lies behind the law.”).

Cited from:  The Common Law and the Religious Foundations of the Rule of Law, by Craig A. Stern, April 26, 2003, The Philadelphia Society National Meeting, New Orleans.

[46] Please judicially note and place on the record, that the original Mississippi Constitution of 1817, noted under its Article 1, Section 1, that:

 Section 1. That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal in rights, and that no man or set of men, are entitled to exclusive, separate, public emoluments or privileges, from the community, but in consideration of public services.

[47] James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments §11 (1785, reprinted in Everson v. Board of Education, 330, U.S. 1, 64) Rutledge, J., dissenting.

[48] Quod ad jus naturale attinet, omnes homenes aequales sunt.  “All men are equal before the natural law.” Dig. 50, 17, 32.

[49] The reader should familiarize themselves with The Law of Nations, by Emmerich de Vattel, © 1883, T. & J.W. Johnson & Co., Law Booksellers, No. 535 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA.

[50] In order to more perfectly drive this point home, please also reference that same constitution, under Article I, sections 10, 11 and 12, to wit:

 Sec. 10. The people shall have the right freely to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives, and to petition the legislature for redress of grievances.

Sec. 11. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.

Sec. 12. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power. No standing army shall be kept up by this State in time of peace; and in time of war no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

[51] See the controlling maxim of law which states:

 Derativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva.  “The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.”

[52] The term “fundamental guarantees” are those rights as defined under God’s “Natural Law,” and by the common law, as asserted and proclaimed throughout the constitution.  Again, this scholarship is well-understood throughout Social Compact theory which delineates these fundamental guarantees of law.

[53] The supreme court later on somewhat admits this fact in Hollingsworth, lines 2-4, on page thirty-three (33) where it admits:

 “State law can choose some other [Citizen], some other group to defend the constitutionality of state law.”

[54] STATUS. The condition of persons. It also means estate, because it signifies the condition or circumstances in which the owner stands with regard to his property. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1689.

Cited from:  Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 6th Ed., Child’s & Peterson, 124 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA., p.

[55] If you look at the Annotated State of New York Constitution of 1777, that case-after-case in those annotations repeat and reiterate the premise of “the good and wholesome laws” of the state.  Why did the state make such notoriety of the ‘good and wholesome laws’?  Clearly, it was because that state, (and I proclaim that each state and society, also wants ‘the good and wholesome laws’), needed to direct and specify to their own government, a clear declaration of the law, and more importantly: the tenor and spirit of the law.  The case can be easily made, that Defendants’/Respondents’ in both Hollingsworth and Windsor, are using the courts in this matter, in which to institute the ‘unclean, perverse, and immoral laws’ to be enforced as laws within all states, and to overturn settled law upon this subject.

[56] “In the Proposition 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144 — involving whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits California from retracting state constitutional law that had allowed same-sex couples to marry — the Court has asked the parties to brief and argue “[w]hether petitioners have standing under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution in this case.”  The petitioners in question, notably, are not the state officials who were the defendants in the lower court and are subject to the district court’s injunction; instead, they are some of the private, official sponsors of Proposition 8.  The district court ruled that they had a right to intervene as parties to defend the suit; and the court of appeals later held that they had standing to appeal the district court’s judgment, even though the state officials who were the original defendants did not do so.”  [Cited from: ]

[57] Which addresses the legal status issue in that oral argument [Reference:  Windsor, from pages 29 to 55].  In any brief, the gay and lesbian litigants (the Respondents’ in Hollingsworth and the Petitioner in Windsor), no court officer turned the Legal Status spotlight on the gay and lesbian side, but only placed it upon those litigants defending the institute of Marriage.

[58] Our first consideration is defined within the controlling maxims of law, which state that Ms. Windsor cannot bring a claim into court, due to her unclean hands:

 Nemo allegans suam turpitudinem, audiendus est.  “No one alleging his own turpitude is to be heard as a witness.” 4 Inst. 279.

[59] Well, the vote was taken on this issue, and the people spoke, but a small special interest did not like the plebiscite (as Justice SCALIA defined them as ‘plebiscite’s’ [See:  Hollingsworth, lines 21-22, page 30]) substantiation and declaration of the law by their vote.

[60] This is the definition of oxymoron.

[61] The controlling maxim of law here is:

 Vir et uxor consentur in lege una persona. “Husband and wife are considered one person in law.” Co. Litt. 112.

[62] Cited from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, © Childs & Peterson, 124 Arch St., Philadelphia, PA, p. 1716.

[63] NOTE: How the judges here admit that they are not a party to the matter.  However; when any father disqualifies a judge using CCP § 170.1(a)(6)(c) “for cause”—then suddenly, the judge in that instance “claim’s” he is a party, in direct violation of law.  The law is clear, no judge can be a party to the matter at hand—as he is supposed to be unbiased and fair.  He is an impartial third party to the proceeding.  “Modern” day courts are again, running in direct contradistinction to the law, and are extremely biased, and illegal tribunals operating under “color of law” and under “color of authority.”

[64] The controlling maxim of law here is:

 Quae communi legi derogant stricte interpretantur“Laws which derogate from the common law ought to be strictly construed.” Jenk. Cent. 231.

[65] Cited from:  THE MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF NEW YORK, Book 2, Delehanzy, Judges of the Several Courts Reported During the Period Covered by this Volume, p. 94] from the case: Fanning v. Fanning, 2 Misc N.Y. 97

[66] Again, the controlling maxims of law here, are:

 Quamvis aliquid per se non sit malum, tamen si sit mali exemple, non est faciendum. Although, in itself, a thing may not be had, yet, if it holds out a bad example, it is not to be done. 2 Co. Inst. 564.

Quamvis lex generaliter loquitur, restringenda tamen est, ut cessante ratione et ipsa cessat. Although the law speaks generally, it is to be restrained when the reason on which it is founded fails. 4 Co. Inst. 330.

[67] Cited from:  Sisterhood is Powerful, by Robin Morgan (Ed.), 1970, p. 537.

[68] This promulgates that Dr. Daniel Amneus defines as the “Promiscuity Principle.”

[69] Cited from:  Feminist Quotes and Articles, by the Old Paths Baptist Church, at:

[70] Id.

[71] Id.

[72] Id.

[73] Id.

[74] Id.

[75] Id.

[76] Cited from:  Feminist Quotes: at:

[77] Id.

[78] Id.

[79] Id.

[80] Id.

[81] Id.

[82] Id.


[84] Please keep in mind, that this is the short list of the social pathology which the American society has suffered through the court’s and government’s infliction of Feminist Jurisprudence throughout our current Family and Criminal Law court systems.  This “social experiment” has egregiously failed—over a timeframe of a half-century—yet; they keep implementing it through the agencies of government, because it institutes a ‘constant state of war’ throughout the society, which employs them, and aggrandizes their government empires.  The supreme courts’ implementation of Gay Marriage will commit similar havoc on the society, and similar profit motives, as we have seen in their other “social experiments.”

[85] Homosexuality   Are Same Sex Relationships a Christian Option?

[86] Homosexual author Dennis Altman, in one of his books, likewise noted the popularity of drugs among homosexuals: “What is disturbing is the degree to which much of the gay world rests on a sea of alcohol and drugs.”  Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America, the Americanization of the Homosexual (NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1982), p. 222.

[87] Cited from: What We Believe: JFM’s Definitive Stance on Homosexuality.

[88] Cited from: Reuben P. Chappie, Whangare!, 6/130 Rathbone Street, (09) 430-4200.

[89] Study finds gay unions brief, by Amy Fagan, July 11, 2003, The Washington Times.

[90] From:  Family Research Institute, P.O. Box 62640, Colorado Springs, CO. 80962, Phone (303) 681-3113;

[91] Id.

[92] Cited from: Medical Problems and Diseases Associated with Homosexual Behavior.   Lavender Diseases

[93] Council on Scientific Affairs, “Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States,” JAMA, May 1, 1996, p. 1355

[94] M. Frisch and others, “Sexually transmitted infection as a cause of anal cancer,” N Engl J Med, Nov. 6, 1997, p. 1350.

[95] S.D. Wexner, “Sexually transmitted diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The challenge of the nineties,” Dis Colon Rectum (EAB), Dec. 1990, from the abstract, p. 1048.

[96] J. Christopherson and others, “Sexually transmitted diseases in hetero-, homo-and bisexual males in Copenhagen,” Dan Med Bull (DYN), June 1988, from the abstract, p. 285.

[97] C.J. Skinner and others, “A case-controlled study of the sexual health needs of lesbians,” Genitourin Med, Aug. 1996, from the abstract, p. 227.

[98] Robert S. Hogg et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.

[99] J.M. Marrazzo and others, “Genital human papillomavirus infection in women who have sex with women,” J Infect Dis, Dec. 1998, from the abstract, p. 1604.  [Many of the cites come from a report entitled:  On The Disease-Ridden Homosexual Lifestyle, by anonymous, cited at:  ]

[100] Kevin McKeough, “With STDs, many still wind up sorry instead of safe,” Chicago Tribune, July 31, 2002, section 8, p. 1.

[101] From:  Traditional Values Special Report; Homosexual Behavior Fuels AIDS and STD Epidemic, by Traditional Values Coalition, 139 C St. SE, Washington, DC 20003; 202-547-8570; , p. 2

[102] Id.

[103] Id.

[104] Citing: Goldman, E., “Psychological Factors Generate HIV Resurgence in Young Gay Men.” Clinical Psychiatry News. Oct. 1994

[105] Tom Farley, “Cruise Control (Bathhouses are reigniting the AIDS crisis),” Washington Monthly, Nov. 2002, pp. 37-41.

[106] Jeremy Manier and Achy Obejas, “AIDS roars back; blacks hardest hit,” Chicago Tribune, June 1, 2001, sec. 1, p. 24.

[107] Family Research Institute, P.O. Box 62640, Colorado Springs, CO. 80962, Phone (303) 681-3113;

[108] John Leo, “Framing the wrong picture,” U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 26, 1994/Jan. 2, 1995, p. 21.

[109] Bologna, M.J. et al (1987)

[110] Domestic Violence, A Two-way StreetOne man battered every 14 seconds!  By Martin Fiebert, Dept. of Psychology, CSU – Bibliography with 122 scholarly investigations which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeded 77,000.  []

[111] From:  Homosexual Urban Legends Series—EXPOSED: Homosexual Child Molesters, by Traditional Values Coalition, 139 C St. SE, Washington, DC 20003; 202-547-8570;, p. 2  [Quoting:  “The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)]

[112] This idea of man and woman being one under the law has survived from Biblical times, throughout Greek and Roman law, through the Germanic tribes and into the English common law where the law states under both stare decisis law and the maxims of law, (even under Legal Dictionary definitions), that only man and woman are to be considered under the institute of marriage.

[113] Indeed.  Within the U.S. Supreme Court case Hollingsworth v. Perry, in direct oral argument, it was Justice ALITO, who admitted this fact, saying in regards to the California Constitution itself, that:

 “Well, just in response to that, of course the constitution could be amended, and—I think I read that the California Constitution has been amended 500 times.” [Hollingsworth v. Perry. Case no. # 12-144,  March 23, 2013 Oral Argument transcript, p. 57].

Here we can admit, that man’s laws are imperfect and constantly change; whereas, God’s law is indelible and perfect, and never changes.  This is why throughout history, various civilizations have been able to go back to the ‘concise rule of law’ as expounded by the Holy Bible and its statutes and Ten Commandments’; and “place their finger on the law,” and depend upon that verity thereto, with absolute certainty, even today.

[114] If I may recollect recent American history in quoting Bill Clinton:  “It all depends on what the meaning of is, is.”

[115] Cited from:  The Gulag Archipelago, An Experiment in Literary Investigation, © 1973, by Aleksandr I. Solzehenitsyn, Harper Row Publishers, New York, pp. 288-291.

[116] The controlling maxim asserting this doctrine is:

 “No man shall set up his infamy as a defence.” 2 W. Bl. 364.

[117] I do not, nor cannot cite any legal authorities for this, but I believe, in good faith with no bad faith proffered to any party in this matter, that this is the truth of the case.

[118] Again, the controlling maxim of law, confirms this:

 Jura naturae sunt immutabilia. “The laws of nature are unchangeable.”

[119] The California Codes are not statutes.  (They do not have the proper constitutional enacting clause, in which to confer to them the legal status  of being law).

[120] FROM:  The Justices and Constables ASSISTANT, Being a General Collection of Forms of Practice, Interspersed with various observations and directions–together with a number of adjudged cases, relative to the Offices of Justice of the Peace and Constable, with an Appendix, Containing a Variety of Useful Forms of CONVEYANCING, by William Graydon, Esq., 1805, Printed by Hohn Wyeth, Harrisburg, PA., p.  102.

[121] American State Trials, John D. Lawson, LL.D., St. Louis, 1914, F.H. Thomas Law Publishers, © 1914, Vol. II, p. 53.

[122] Cited by Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle 127 (Ernest Barker trans., 1971-2) (III, xi, § 19; 1282b) (footnote omitted), and affirmed by John Adams when he wrote for the First Continental Congress, “We the Congress of the United States adopt the common law, as the rule of law, and as the law of highest reason.” [paraphrased from the author’s memory (citation omitted).]

[123] I would most assuredly like to see the empirical study of these children, who are so legally cognizant to frame this question, and proffer their legal demands before the supreme court upon this subject.  Now, question: were these children coerced by the persons’ whom lived with them to only frame their complaints, in the light most favorable to the Gay and Lesbian coalitions—or, in the alternative; were these children placated and led by their Gay parents to an immoral legal declaration?  Indeed, I would most like to see this Red brief empirical documentation of legally incompetent children framing this question.

[124] Reference:  Ex parte D.W.W., 717 So.2d 793

[125] CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS, THEIR NATURE, POWERS, AND LIMITATIONS, by Roger Sherman Hoar, A.B., L.L.B., ã 1917, Boston Little, Brown & Co., Boston, p. 82

[126] Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville, © 1946, Oxford University Press, New York, Inc., p. 185.

[127] Cited from:  Dr. Dobson Answers Your Questions, (Dr. James Dobson), © 1982, Living Books, Wheaton, Ill. ISBN 0-8423-0580-7, p. 432.

[128] Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, West Law Co., St. Paul, Minn., p. 1753.  (Found under the main term WAR).


Robert L. Cheney Jr.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply