“Once A Homo, Always A Homo.”, Gay Marriage And The Supreme Court

“If you have to pass laws that hurt other people in order to prove your morals and values, then you have no true morals or values to prove.” --  George Takei

How many laws in our society are based on some degree of violence?   Just about all of the million plus pages of codified code in this nation.    Takei’s comments extend well beyond the patronizing, hypocritical religious lunacy.

Yahoo has just published an investigative video on the U.S. government’s uniquely nasty war on gay people.    The title of this post is taken from the words of a U.S. government lawyer highlighted in this video who supported state terrorism against gay people.   More vile, ignorant and dumbed-down acts of violence by the state and bureaucrats in the good ole days of the corporate state.   You know, when men were men and women were women.   And being a real man meant you used the force of the state to terrorize innocent, decent people who were different than you.

The Supreme Court has just ruled that gay marriage is legal or whatever it is that the Supreme Court does.   What a surprise that we have a bunch of bureaucrats determining our natural rights.   Gay marriage was always “legal”.    It has simply been that the force of the state has been used to deny  gay people their natural rights.   Just as they selectively deny all of us our rights in some manner or another.   What would have astonished me, and would have been appropriate, is a dissenting view by one or all justices that they cannot rule on rights they have no control over.  ie, Gay marriage, slavery or whatnot.   That the Constitution is not a document of our inalienable, natural rights.   Those rights are granted by our Creator and no man has any right to deny or be the judge of any other man’s natural rights.   So, we, the Supreme Court, cannot rule on rights inherent to every human being.  Those rights are above and beyond our jurisdiction and are granted by our Creator.   Gay people have the same rights as all other people.    We can only rule on the limits of state power.    But the palpable arrogance and ignorance of the Supreme Court is clearly evident in many of their post-decision remarks.   Personally, it seems quite apparent the Supreme Court needs to be a little less supreme and a lot more democratic and even more driven by inalienable, natural rights rather than precedence and interpretations on state authority.   

I have written substantially about the overreach of the Supreme Court and that our founders did not grant judicial review to the courts.  In other words, the interpretation of what is or is not constitutional is not a right granted to the courts.   But rather the courts usurped that power with a particular court decision.    And, from there, precedence became the determining factor granting the Supreme Court illegitimate authority over our lives.   There is absolutely nothing “legal” about the Supreme Court being the only arbiter of our rights.   It’s simply based on tradition formed by a self-interested, bureaucratic power grab.   Interestingly, one must wonder if that power grab wasn’t in some way a constitutional crisis when unelected Supreme Court justices usurped that democratic right from We The People.   Many of our founders rejected that grab at that time.   Our founders gave the right of constitutional review to the states, to the people, to the courts, to the Congress and to the executive branch.    There are many writings on this including by Thomas Jefferson, who was clearly adept at understanding the law as it was intended since he was a major party to creating it and a lawyer himself.   As noted in past posts,  Jefferson remarked that anyone is able to mount a constitutional review or constitutional challenge to state power without it being determined by the courts.    Frankly, that review could be mounted by citizens including slaves themselves or gay people or whomever or anyone that was the subject of having their rights denied by state power grabs.   But, that democratic and natural rights power is now so suppressed by state power that considering such a power is granted to the people would be considered ludicrous.   The state bureaucrats have ensured that.    There are still many constitutional scholars and law professors who understand this.   Yet, most lawyers, law professors and members of the political establishment are conveniently ignorant to this fact.   And, thus, so are We The People.  With good reason.   It doesn’t serve the power of the state so it is a suppressed right.

The overreach of unelected bureaucrats, including Supreme Court judges, is so well understood as anti-democratic and tyrannical that France stripped its supreme court of constitutional review some decades ago and gave it back to the people.    The unelected bureaucrats aka judges in the courts in France no longer determine what is constitutional.   That could easily happen in the United States in coming decades.   What would our society look like if the Supreme Court was stripped of determining what is constitutional?   I would imagine it would be quite a major improvement in the quality of life of most Americans but a major shock to corporations, politicians, pathological elites and the state that props them up.   While we are at it, these highly political judicial hacks should have the power of lifetime appointment stripped from them as well.  Hey, while we are at it, there are no limits to the amount of justices on the Supreme Court.   And there is no requirement that a judge be a lawyer.   Maybe we should have a justice or two from each state.   Maybe a man and woman from each state.   Or, maybe a man and woman from each race and state.   And maybe we should consider people from other walks of life than lawyers.   Being a constitutional scholar is not guaranteed by a diploma as a lawyer.   Millions of people could be qualified to serve.    Whatever would make the courts more reflective of democracy and an inclusive society.

Reading the dissenting justice’s comments released on gay marriage, we see the dissenting views are all literally based on ignorance, hate (violence) and bullshit.   Which is a pretty doggone good reason why the unelected courts should not be determining the Rights of Man.  The state did not grant people the right to express their love for each other through the commitment of marriage or any other social construct.   God or our Creator or our higher power or the universe or nature or however you feel comfortable characterizing it, gave us those rights.   The Constitution is not a document that defines the rights of people.   It is a document that specifically limits the power of the state and is there to ensure there is no state overreach into our inalienable, natural rights.  Our Creator granted rights to people.   And that means our Creator granted the right of marriage to two consenting adults regardless of their race or gender.   Remember, it was not too long ago that it was also illegal for people of different ethnicities to marry in this nation.   Some of those laws are almost certainly still on the books of many states in this country but just no longer enforced.   The history of state overreach into our rights is and always will be timeless. 

“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” – Chief Justice Roberts

“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.” – Justice Thomas

“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.” – Justice Alito

“to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.” – Justice Scalia

I can’t believe the lack of professional ethics involved in the dissenting justice’s emotional, bile-driven, fear-bating.   This is how terrorism starts in a society.   It’s always started by the state pathology running cover for lunatics and hate-mongers.    This type of commentary is very similar to the endless hatred and fear-bating about freeing black slaves during Civil War times or the fear-bating of the propaganda movie Reefer Madness in the 1930s that, from memory, would turn black men against white women or whatever the propaganda was.   And that led to putting tens of millions of people in prison for literally just about nothing other than smoking a joint.   The state is the ultimate source of terrorism.   And in some way the ignorance of state pathology runs interference for idiots and morons that do their bidding.  The reason why our country has become the Idiocracy (This dystopian comedy has turned out to be very prescient to reality. The dumbest people in history in that movie are politicians and corporate state bureaucrats. )   is because of the overreach of politicians and state bureaucrats in all aspects of our lives.   State actors are the idiocracy.   They are not the most qualified public servants in our society.  And they certainly aren’t the most selfless or brilliant or loving or creative or whatnot.  They aren’t even close.

These comments about democracy or the Constitution by these highly political, (thus highly flawed in their ability to think critically and humanely), highly emotionally-charged positions are ludicrous.   It really crystalizes the state’s war on gay people in the Yahoo video above.   It’s this type of fear-mongering and ignorant small-mindedness that reflects state terror against gay people in Yahoo’s investigative report.  

Gay marriage is a threat to democracy?   Really?  That is laughable and reeks of ignorance and homophobia.   People who want to express their love for each other by making a commitment is a threat?  People who have done nothing to harm anyone but rather wish to let their light shine without the endless shame and humiliation of people telling them something is wrong with them are a threat?   Actually, I think the greater threat is an overreaching Supreme Court that arrogantly grants spying, torture, corporate personhood, no limits on political spending by a pathological aristocracy and corporate pathocrats, debt enslavement, privately controlled, anti-democratic money, endless seeds needed for the subjugation of humanity including war and enslavement to corporations and the like are the greatest threat to our democracy.   That would be overreaching, unelected, activist Supreme Court justices granting power to the state while taking it from the people’s inalienable rights.

And the justice’s remarks about lost religious freedoms with legal gay marriage?   You mean to burn people at the stake because they were possessed by demons?   Or, maybe you mean genital mutilation of women, as a form of religious freedom, that is practiced by a large number of religious people in this nation?  Or, how about the religious freedom of efforts of forced gender change in Iran?  Or the religious freedoms of the hateful beliefs of the KKK?   What the hell does religious freedom have to do with anything?  What the courts should be focused on is ensuring gay people have the same religious rights to be married as anyone else.   That would be a nonviolent position of equality.  And by the way, marriage in this nation is not a religious institution.   Don’t kid yourself.   It may be performed in a church or by a religious leader, or maybe it is not, but that church has absolutely nothing to do with the marital contract that is enforced by the state in this nation.   Marriage today looks nothing like marriage did in Biblical times, which is the ill-guided hateful, patronizing, class-based foundation for the denial of gay people’s human and religious rights in the first place.   Marriage is a state contract today.   It may be more things in the mind of those who wish to marry in our society, but the state could care less about what is in the mind of those that are married when it comes to enforcing that contract.  Religious freedom is another hate-driven fallacy used to cover up the reality of those who hide behind it to deny others their God-given rights.  

There is a pretty well-developed perspective that I happen to agree with - one can determine a society’s true freedoms by the rights of women in that society.   Are women granted the right to vote?  To hold public office?  To lead organizations of women and men? To work with men?  To become educated?  To have the right to divorce?  And on and on.   I think maybe we should consider moving the bar a little bit.    Economic freedoms certainly needs to be included as a barometer given how the world lives under incredible economic tyranny.   And the freedoms of all people regardless of race, religion or gender to enjoy completely equal rights under the law.  Our laws should not be to grant anyone any particular advantage or deny anyone any particular rights.   All people should be equal in the eyes of the law as they are considered so by our natural, inalienable rights granted by our Creator.  

God, Gaia, Allah, our Creator, our higher power, nature, the divine universe or whatnot did not grant ultimate power to the state to then determine what rights humanity has.    That Power, our Creator, granted rights to humanity.   And humanity then granted minimal rights of maintaining a civilized society to the self-rule of government.    How exactly does the Supreme Court support that in its current form?   Unfortunately, ignorance is palpable in a world controlled and contrived by state authority and state bureaucrats who enforce that violence but we must remind ourselves that we don’t vote on human rights.  The state does not determine our human rights.   We grant ourselves those rights through our own divinity that our Creator gave all of us.   We don’t vote on slavery and we don’t vote on gay rights.   Those rights are there to be shared by all people.   The state should have absolutely no power to deny us of those inalienable rights.    If it’s not in the Constitution, its not a power that humanity has granted to anyone other than ourselves.    Chief Justice John Robert’s above comments are those of a clown and a dunce.    The Constitution is not the end-all in the determination of our rights.   Gay people have always had the rights of marriage.   The Constitution is there to limit the rights of the state and people like Roberts who somehow believe they uniquely have some authority over us that they have never been granted by the people or our Creator.   Our natural  rights are not up for debate.    We vote to approve bridges not slavery or marriage or equality or inalienable rights or whatnot.

Let’s see.   Throughout American history the state has terrorized American Indians, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, Japanese Americans, African Americans, Black men, White men, gays, supposed communists, supposed Muslim terrorists, the poor, the working class…  have I left anyone out?   Or, maybe the more appropriate question is there anyone left?   And on what group of entitled people have these acts of terror been approved?   That would be the pathological. 

First they (the state) came for the communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.  -- Martin Niemoller