- The Annihilation of Marriage-Part One
- The Annihilation of Marriage- Part Two
- Legalizing homosexual marriage impairs unalienable right
- Scalia Indicts Windsor Decision’s Intentional Bias
- Scalia’s Windsor dissent: Deficient in principle?
- U.S. Judge discards unalienable right of marriage
- Liz vs. Mary: How Both Cheneys Mistake the “Gay Marriage” Issue
- The flaw of Judge Allen’s precluded muddle
- Enslaved by mammon: Brewer, GOP elitists abandon unalienable right
- The elitists’ war on human nature
- Family ties and the natural basis for property
- Legally Institutionalizing homosexuality threatens America’s rights and liberty
It’s evident that the elitist faction’s political, money, and media powers have a virulent prejudice against practicing Christians. This was evident in the blackmail threats they made against the people of Arizona. These threats successfully induced Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to thwart the people’s will, made clear in a law passed by the Arizona legislature. The law sought to protect Arizonans from judges who are abusing their position in order to coerce the conscience of people who refuse to cooperate with the denial and denigration of the unalienable rights of the God-endowed family.
With no warrant but their personal whims, Federal judges are purporting to force Arizona and other states to violate their duty (made explicit in the 14th Amendment) to refuse enforcement of laws (including judicial decisions purporting to have the force of law) that “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” within their jurisdiction. By their action these Federal judges deny and denigrate the unalienable rights of the natural family. These rights arise from respecting the law of nature and nature’s God, which provides for the perpetuation of the species through the union of man and woman in marriage.
The unalienable rights of the natural family were unquestionably possessed and retained by all the citizens of the United States at the time they adopted the U.S. Constitution. The 9th Amendment plainly states that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” By their decisions some Federal judges are disrespecting the rights of the natural family (such as, for example, the right of each child to know and be cared for by his or her natural parents; the right of every natural parent to demand respect for the parental authority connected with this natural duty of care; the right of both parents and their children to respect for the natural bond that establishes their mutual belonging to one another; and so forth. The Federal judges denigrate these rights because they prejudicially favor a so-called “right” of homosexuals to marry, which they have lately purported, by specious construction of its terms, to find in the U.S. Constitution.
But the Constitution’s 9th Amendment explicitly forbids any construction of rights among those numbered in the Constitution that denies and denigrates the antecedent rights retained by the people. Since unalienable rights cannot, by their very nature, be given or taken away by any human law or power whatsoever, they are unquestionably among these retained rights. Therefore no judicial bias in favor of some recently constructed right can be Constitutionally allowed to deny or disparage them.
According to America’s Declaration of Independence (part of the definitive organic law of the United States) governments are instituted to secure unalienable rights. But where there is no claim of obligation arising from “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” there can be no claim of unalienable right. For an exercise of right cannot be unalienable unless it is inherent in human nature, as endowed by God. This direct connection with the authority and intention of the Creator is the reason a valid claim of unalienable right trumps the authority of any law derived from merely human authority.
In their decisions judges like Arenda Wright Allen purport to give the unalienable rights of the natural family the same status as a judicially constructed right derived by recent Constitutional construction. This judicial construction relies on feelings which, however popular they may be among the elitist few, have no root or reflection in either the common sense or natural experience of the people at large. Driven by these prejudicial feelings, judges go so far as to defame laws adopted in order to secure the unalienable rights of the natural family. Judge Allen, for example, went so far as to declare that this defense of unalienable right causes a homosexual couple to “suffer humiliation and discriminatory treatment” so that “stigmatic harm flows directly from current state law.” By thus denigrating lawful actions taken in defense of unalienable rights, judges like Judge Allen obviously denigrate those rights, in a manner that must inflict severe damage upon them when, on account of such slanderous contentions, governments fail in their obligation “to secure these rights.”
In this respect the 9th Amendment’s use of the term ‘denigration’ is key. Some may argue that allowing homosexual couples to claim the privilege of marriage in no way denies that privilege to heterosexuals. However, it inevitably denies, to any children claimed by the homosexual couple, the right to know and be cared for by one or both of their natural parents. Moreover, it equates the unalienable rights of the natural family, rooted in the transcendent authority of God, with a humanly constructed right of homosexuals to marry. But the right which is given by government construction, can be taken away by government deconstruction; whereas the rights of the natural family, endowed by the Creator, cannot lawfully be taken away by any merely human governmental authority.
On account of their prejudicial bias in favor of a right of their own construction, Judges like Arenda Wright Allen equate governmentally constructed, judicially fabricated rights with God-endowed unalienable right, making the greater equal to the less. This undeniably denigrates the claim of unalienable right which, on account of its direct connection with the Creator’s authority, is secured against violation by any merely human law or governmental authority whatsoever.
What government gives by law, government may lawfully take away. But that which God endows, no human government has given, or may lawfully take away. The violation of God-endowed right therefore justifies resistance against any government responsible for the violation. It is just cause for war, casus belli, of the very sort America’s founders cited in the Declaration of Independence,when they declared their withdrawal from the jurisdiction of British tyranny.
With consummate wisdom, the people of Arizona (and other states) are moving to secure the unalienable right of conscience with respect to the natural family. They mean to thwart those who would abuse the force of law in order to damage people acting conscientiously to uphold its God-endowed rights. Unlike the prejudiced judges, the people of Arizona refuse to equate a specious, humanly fabricated right with the God endowed rights that are rooted in respect for the natural bonds and obligations entailed by the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.”
Under pressure from the elitist faction’s money and media powers, and its collaborators in the GOP leadership, Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the law passed in defense of conscience by majorities in the Arizona legislature. By doing so she gave further proof of the fact the GOP has abandoned the principles of America’s Declaration of Independence. Obviously, the Republican Party is no longer the Party of Lincoln, whose statesmanship was deeply rooted in those principles. People like myself, who will not surrender the Declaration’s commitment to God endowed right, justice and self-government (of, by and for the people), are once again made to see the desperate and immediate need for a great, independent movement of Americans who hold to, and mean faithfully to represent the self-evident truths that defined our nation and sustained its great success. Are you among them?
If you are, this latest example of GOP abandonment of Declaration principle adds to the overwhelming evidence that the GOP’s elitist leadership is at war with you and everything you stand for. This fact has tragic and immediately dire consequences for the survival of the American Republican. In my next post, I will take few minutes to think them through.