Constitutional Equal Protection

Women Abortion Rights

Federal equal protection is applied to all people, as persons having races, genders, creeds, and origins. At the common law a person was in being, that is, a fetus became a person when born. At the federal level, that should mean that an in vitro fetus is not person. With the advance of medicine, a late term fetus can survive, and many do during cesarean section, and then becomes protected by federal law. A woman has the right to decide what is good for each woman, but murder is not protected. Many laws extend murder, as a double murder, when murdering a pregnant woman kills a fetus concurrently. The abortion issue plagues the country without resolution.  There is the balance between gender rights of women and all persons under equal protection. The supreme court needs to end civil strife, by either allowing states under states rights to define abortion laws or by setting the abortion laws based upon federal equal protection and due process. One possible solution would be to prohibit states from banning abortions during the first trimester and prohibiting abortions during the 3rd trimester, without regard to religious beliefs in support of separation of church and state. Surely life begins at conception and Christians believe all live is sacred, opposing gender rights of privacy and equal protection. It is without question, that in vitro fetuses become viable late term. The congress should enact laws prohibiting late term abortions under this obvious viability of an in vitro infant as persons deserving of equal protection. The congress may also enact laws vesting in women the privacy rights to abortions during an early conception period. Between early conception and late term periods, is an area of social discourse vesting in the many states the determination of the extent of women rights as to abortions. The federal government should vacate planned parenthood laws, and provide for equal protection of women and persons, as a reasonable resolution.

The concept of drilling head holes in babies as they are taking their first breath of air, is grossly inhuman and barbaric, in the extreme. Any caring reasonable human being should see that. The federal courts can enforce prohibition against late term abortions and protect women gender right to abortions during early periods pursuant to congressional legislation and supreme court approval. There can be a state residency requirement for any terminations under the care and control of stated licensed doctors.

The many states are vested with jurisdiction over social issues and can provide enhance equal protection of in vitro infants and women rights between the conception period and the late term period, as social issues, as the states of the republic so decide, which is the states business, not the federal government business, as the states can balance women rights and person rights between these two early conception and late term periods as the states so choose.

Simple Equal Protection

The republic should be respected. At the federal level, equal protection of the 14th amendment should be limited to Religious Creeds in the 3rd amendment, Race in the 13th amendment, National Origins in the 14th amendment, Gender in the 19th amendment. States can have their respective additional equal protection laws. A legitimate state interest is the procreation of the next generation of tax payers. Marriage and Procreation should be disposed in family law courts. States can characterize, under freedom of contract, special civil union contracts meeting certain requirements, such as two adults sharing until death do them part, which is a civil contract, adjudicated in civil courts, and such persons thereto can also be given certain state rights, such as hospital visitations rights. California can have Civil Unions, Sparkling parade permits, work place equal protection as to sexual orientations, and such like, if California decides to do so without forcing California laws upon other states of the republic. 

The feedback control is how citizens of other states are likely to move there, start new businesses there, and leave there, and the like types of feedback, providing interstate feedback control. The States of the Republic should be allowed to choose for themselves, and get the federal government out of the details of social issues. States can add additional equal protection of age, disability, and sexual-orientations, what ever that means, as the states so choose. Race, Gender, National Origin, and Religion are the major aspects of mankind, the others aspects are much less so. The world geography is fixed, over laid with national borders, of procreating men and women, of different races and having different creeds, and the simple federal approach to equal protection reflects the world in which the US operates, and its Constitution. These four simple limitations are placed upon the states, of minimal equal protection, and are found literally in the US constitution, covering the basics of mankind, and any extension therefrom would be a violation of judicial oaths to defend the constitution, warranting judicial impeachment, as promoting endless conflict at the federal level. States can add more equal protection as they choose within the republic of states for which the US Flag should stand.

One Nation Under God

Religion in the USA and around the world is often conflicted, yet these same religions have at their core good teachings, which if practiced, provide mortal men a moral manner with which to conduct their lives for the betterment of their families, neighborhoods, states, nations and for the world generally. These religions teach tolerance. Yet some leaders of these religions spew hatred, violence and condemnation of others on religious grounds, rather than conflicted political and military grounds. People of religion should practice what they preach. There are those who unfortunately, seek the removal of religious symbols in their eyes, practicing intolerance and condemnations. The better angles of our hearts should be tolerant and respectful of others, and in return, expect liberty and equal protection under the law. I seek unification of religious groups on this principal of tolerance and respect with liberty and equal protection.

Tolerance Respect Acceptance Approval  

Gays can not force others to approve or accept their life style, but can through social civil behavior reduce contempt by others. 
Gays can obtain civil unions and social rights, through states rights votes, best achieved through respect and tolerance of others. 
Gays can civilly and socially earn and enjoy tolerance and respect from others through tolerance and respect of others. 

Under the Constitution, the federal government has enumerated limited powers, all else reserved unto the many states. 
The states under states right have the power to social engineer, that is, draw lines on civic social behavior and rights. 
These rights include boycott/shop serve/refuse hire/fire apply/quit as the voters deems fit as enacted by law. 
Federal government equal protection is limited to creed, gender, nationality and race, and no more. 
Gays can change federal equal protection by a currently unlikely constitutional amendment of equal protection for preferences.
Gays can campaign for increases states rights trying to persuade state voters for increased states rights. 
Thus, it is the voting public that determines gay rights, and gays desiring increase rights should appeal to state voters. 
To the extent gays are respectful and tolerant of others, to the extent they are more likely to obtain voters approval of gay rights.

Gay couples earn respect by not attacking or forced indoctrination of the necessary host community and its necessary foundation of traditional marriage, religion, parental rights, and children for cementing mutual respect, and societal tranquilly. The concern for HIV is now out of the closet, and the medical profession is addressing this horrible disease, just like it is addressing venereal diseases of the heterosexual community. The modern issue of gay tolerance and acceptance, a civic desired society goal, lies in functional mutual respect between gays and the host community. DEM led gay pandering for cementing votes creates hate, gay bashing, and disrespect, for that parasitic community, and is counter productive to constitutional purposes of securing domestic tranquility. Personally, I have had many gay friends, in my town, who did not desire to attack, belittle, and demean my support for the institution of marriage, my faith, my parental rights, and my children, and gained my respect in return. We get along just fine in my town without any problems. It is not a matter of forced approval and acceptance, and that is not required, but civility through earned mutual respect for societal domestic tranquility. We all can get along, through mutual respect. Gays should remain sensitive in that forcing alternative life styles and indoctrinations upon a morally anchored host community procreating children creates civil strife and gay bashing, and should recognize that flaming at work, christian operated service providers, child organizations, is not the smart play, if respect and tolerance are truly desired. 

I have two distant relatives who are gay, and I grew up in association with them during my early years. They later adopted a gay life style and found long term partners. As they respect and tolerate my faith, my marriage, my parental rights, and by children, they gain tolerance and respect from me in return. As I have known them for decades, and are always polite with me, I accept them as loving members of my extended family. We get along just great. However, they will never, no matter how vicious and demanding the gay rights advocates are, gain my approval. As a social conservative, I will never approve of their life style. But guess what? They dont need my approval, only my tolerance and respect, and, the gracious acceptance of them was a bonus from the general population at large. And, that is enough for civil harmony. You cant force people to approve and accept, but if the gays are tolerance and respectful of others and the law, they get tolerance and respect in return. Domestic tranquilly is all the constitution requires of citizens, and no more, and in fact suggests, that through religious freedom, that approval and acceptance is not required of citizens to be tolerant and respectful of each other, in order to insure domestic tranquility, the entire purpose of the Constitution.   

It should not matter if the president is a social conservative or liberal in enforcing civil law by the Constitution, as social issues are state matters left to the individual states as state voters deem fit, so that all Americans get equal respect under federal law. DEMs stir up gays for votes, cause strife and gay bashing. Gays should leave marriage, religion, parents and kids alone. Brutally but honestly parasitic sodomite communities have no business attacking marriage, religion, parents and kids with alternative life styles. Remember Paul Lynde, Hollywood squares, he was obviously gay just by simple observation, but he did not push gay on kids, and thus was respected by all. Gay couples earn respect by not attacking marriage, religion, parents, and kids for mutual respect, and social tranquilly. DEM led gay pandering for cementing votes creates hate, gay bashing, disrespect, for the gay community. The gay community simply can not exist without a moral procreating host community and should understand the symbiotic relationship, and live peaceably within it. The gay solution lies in mutual respect, but dont tell the DEMs that, as pandering the gay vote, causing civil strife & gay bashing, for cementing political power. May farcical arguments are made by the DEM pandering machine. The difference between gays and infertile M-F marriages lies in efficient public policy, promoting M-F marriages (with desired procreation) v M-M unions, to anchor children and society. Its strange how gays use all kinds of shallow arguments, infertile couple, genetics, ancient homo  societies, et seq., to support positions, that dont hold water. The genetic argument is simply garbage, made by gay zealots as DEM pandered. From the cultivation age, 6000 years ago, taboos, adopted by religion, were set to stabilize society growth and strength. Gay cant fight and win over necessary heterosexual morals. Gays are fighting a self-defeating losing battle, but gays can earn respect and tolerance, and be proud respected members of society. Parents need to anchor children in a traditional marriage oriented culture for the over all health of society. When child reaches 18 years of age and are adult, they can learn about life styles under free speech. Gays should step back and realize that rules are necessary for societal strength and that the heterosexual religious procreating community must be kept resilient and strong for everyone's benefit. Gays should leave children alone, and respect parent rights and their traditional marriage and religious institutions that have served mankind well over the last 5000 years. What parent would send their kids to the boys club with gay den transsexual mom? Gays have decimated the ranks of the boy scouts, now a bastardized institution. Decay of traditional morals and institutions have been promoted by gays and their DEM panderers, and then the gays wonder why there is gay bashing. Gays cant be that stupid. What two gay boys really want to fight over a couch in a family law divorce court? They dont, but for DEM led gay pandering for votes, falsely generating perceived necessary rights, only raising strife and conflict in a necessarily losing destructive cause. Gay love can be tolerated and respected. We can always use more love. The gay culture is also plus to the cultural mix, but attacking marriage, religion, parents, and kids is simply the wrong play. Though my faith teaches me that its the wrong life style for me, that moral decay is a problem, I can tell you, my gay friends are my friends as they respect my marriage, faith and parental rights, and provide a culture that can be tolerated yet not approved and enhance our general culture without acceptance, but respected as adults, without condemnation, when being gay in the right place at the right time, even when not approved or accepted, in the fullness of civil mutual respect. Christians can be tolerant and respectful, even if not approving or accepting, and there is a difference. Gays can be tolerant and respectful even to those not approving or accepting. Civil law requires tolerance and respect, not approval or acceptance. Civil law requires tolerance and respect for insuring domestic tranquility and societal harmony. 

Gloria Gaynor Never Can Say Goodbye

Gay Marriage and Civil Unions

Over the evolution of homo sapiens, women and men assumed different roles. Women were more of gatherers staying close to nest to raise the young, while men were off hunting. Male and female bodies became substantially different to suit those roles. The sexes have obvious sexual difference, but the difference between men and women went far beyond genitalia. Men had broad shoulders and facial hair for staying out long on the hunt. Women had narrow shoulders and no facial hair. Men and women were attracted to teach other by physical appearances. It was heterosexuality in all its glory. Procreating youth is not wasted on the young, to survive the eons of course. The brains between men and women also are not the same. The sexual brains were also hard wired slightly different. Women tend to be more communicative talking to each other in those nests and men became more authoritative, developed over the eons to fit the two different roles and for procreation. There is no mythical pretend about it all, it is just the way it is. Equal protection for genders is by US Constitutional law, as it should be, as the mental differences are so slight that that should not be the basis for discrimination.  

Throughout the ages, there have been homosexual behavior. And like incest, polygamy, and other social taboo, homosexuality was included, as these taboos were directed to maintain the nuclear family, the heart of procreation and survival. This makes complete sense. Sure, Egyptians had pharonic incest to keep power in the family, and the Greeks had their love boys for pleasure seeking, and the Arabs had polygamy under rich chieftains, but by and large, these taboos were to maintain the mainstay of the families and sexual relations, to procreate the next generation. Incest causes freaks, lover boys destroys responsible fathers, and polygamy teaches female sex slaves and  concubine traffickers, all destructive to the family unit promoting healthy children of the next generation.

But we live on a planet subject to ionic radiation, that randomly messes up the genetic gene pool, which furthers the evolution of species, but also produces freaks from time to time. As a simple example, one in ten million men are born with breasts. They are freaks of nature. Such odds would likely extend to brains, where in deed, say one in ten million men have females brains.

Democracy is a learned culture, for example. It takes education and culture to spew out your mantra in another's face, and then shake hands afterward, and let the vote decide. This culture and education is at work against innate human aggressiveness and selfishness. Culture and education have allot do to with adjusting innate behaviors.

Homosexuality is, by and large, a learned culture. Lets run a simple experiment in modern USA. Get 100 eighteen year old boys from high school, and place them in an auditorium, and have two young beautiful girls come on stage, naked, oiled, with background boom boom boom type of music and let the girls go at it, rubbing and foundling each other, for an hour. Normal boys with hard wired male brains will get turned on, naturally so, its biology, evolved throughout the eons. Then check each boy for an erected tool, and list the boys by name. Remember, the boys were excited only by visual stimulation, like a playboy in your face. You will find about 95% of the boys have real good stiff male tools. One can infer from this, that their brains are hard wired male.  

Now wait say five years, and let the gay parades, predatory persuasions, and societal growing acceptance of homosexuality take its toll on that list of boys, and have them then return to the auditorium again. Then rerun the experiment on the original population list of boys that had erections. One will find that number of stiff male tools has decreased, yet the bodies are still young and the hard wired brains did not physically change. Now count the number of boys with stiff male tools. One will find that the number of boys with stiff male tools has decreased. But why would that be? This is the proof that homosexuality is largely a learned psychology. It is that simple.

The state has a legitimate state interest in the procreation of the next generation of tax payers, and that includes providing children the best chances of thriving, and married mothers and fathers in the homes provide both to the state. Sure, some parents divorce and some don’t make very good parents. But, generally, the nuclear family is the best place to raise children in a mother and father marriage.

The state also has a legitimate interest in not promoting decease such as where male tools don’t belong, as well as not promoting the procreation of freaks through sibling marriages. There is an innate reason why the young are inherently rebellious, and that is, to fly the nest, and strike out on their own, to widely procreate the species. Its all biology with procreation of the species for survival of the species being the main human driver.

Family law courts are centered in child custody concerns, where spousal support is considered in view of child support and community property distributions, in an entirety, so that family law courts are particularly suited to address all of these concerns of a family likely to procreate. The family law courts are particularly and specifically designed to resolve marriages where procreation is likely. Civil Unions can be addressed under normal contract law in civil courts where freedom of association and freedom of contract are normal actions. There is no need to carve out an intrusion into the family law courts for homosexual cohabitation. If it aint broke, dont fix it. What is at play here is the attempt by homosexual activists to force their life style down everyone else's sensitivities, apparently hoping that will bring more acceptance to their intrinsic parasitic behavior, for if all the people were homosexual, there would be no more children, and hence the gay community is by definition and logic and necessity a parasitic community. The issue of accommodation as to police state invasion of civil rights and the disposition of contract law and freedoms to associate are not matters for the family law courts, but are matters for the civil courts where civil unions can be addressed.

So, law can perfect freedom of association and freedom of contract with limited searches, to provide gay couples relative safety within private homes. Apparently that was not enough, as sparkling parades are given permits and equal protection is extended, to where employers must hire homosexuals and stick them next to coworkers who can only quit jobs if offended. There seems to be some kind of agenda to force homosexual life styles upon heterosexual people, to accept them and their behavior, at work, at school, in society generally, in conflict with long standing creeds of heterosexuals, and their freedom of association and freedom of contract. The homosexual community is running over freedoms of association, contract, and religion of heterosexuals in an aggressive manner, and have been successful. Heterosexual people are forced by government laws to work with and accept homosexual behavior in their mists. Thus, the life style of those who can not procreate the next generation of tax payers and new member of the work force to sustain the state are forced by law upon those who can, to teach their children that homosexual life style is just fine. Of course, homosexual public displays, starting with holding hands, then kisses, and more, will be protected, so as to teach children that is acceptable, so as to further degrade, long term, the work force and the number of tax payers. So, apparently, degrading a state legitimate interest is perfected, by and large, while degrading long standing freedoms of religion, association, contract and state interests in promoting more in the work force and number of tax payers. This only makes sense if one considers short term political pandering in modern politics and general pervasiveness of corruption generally, from currencies, to markets, to the voting booth. It is all part of a general decay started 100 years ago when rules were thrown out. Parents have a difficult time as it is, raising kids, who should be allowed to reach adulthood of 18 yo, under parental care and guidance, to at least have a reasonable chance of getting their heads on straight, before the drug pushers and homosexuals prey upon them with their parasitic life styles.    

So, without a legitimate state interest and contrary to legitimate state interests, the homosexual community has manage to expose and force their parasitic life style through force of law upon parents and their children. How did it get that way? Through political pandering, of course. And after 100 years of corrupting the US Constitution, the money, and society, the advent of forced exposure is now law, with the corrupted courts placating political pandering rather than defending the constitution. But beyond the obvious corruption, there is a more insidious aspect, and that is the destruction of interstate social feedback. San Francisco homosexual life styles are now jammed down the throat of others in other states whether they like it or not. The concept of limited government has been trashed by those who swore to defend the constitution. As such, the social behavior dominate in one state is now forced upon those in all others state, by federal law, thereby preventing escape and movement from that state of homosexual origins. That raises anger in parents and heterosexuals, mostly, and breeds contempt with no release or feedback control. Had the courts honored their oaths to defend the constitution, California could have adopted equal protection for "sexual orientation" while others were safe from it, if they choose to be so, but not now, after the US Constitution has been trashed, where it is now corrupted and the government is unlimited and totalitarian. If parents dont like the homosexual exposure in one state they could move out, and businesses could decide not start business in homosexual states, but not now, as the social interstate feedback control is dead under federal plenary totalitarian rule. Not only has the US constitution been corrupted by general political pandering, but the aspect of a Republic is dead, as now one shoe fits all, by national law, whether anyone likes it or not. The Constitution is trashed. Social feedback is destroyed. The Republic is Dead. And, San Francisco homosexuality life style is thusly imposed and forced upon all others without escape therefrom, breeding contempt for government, the courts and the homosexuals at large. 

Civil union contracts can be between any two adults, but that when a child is procreated, the civil union contract is transferred to the family law courts, the civil union contract can supplement family law considerations for child support and child custody of the procreated child of the civil union. Partners contract in civil unions that that are terminated in civil courts, unless children are procreated, and thus dissolved in a family law court. Husbands and Wives marry in civil or religious unions, with a default implied civil union contract that is dissolved in a family law court.

Parents are charged with the responsibility of raising their children, giving children the best chance at life, which has been effectively taken from them, by the state through homosexual activists. Children have enough troubles just growing up without the homosexuals and the state reinforcing alternative life styles, particularly a morally decadent parasitic life style, confusing their little minds early on. It is simply evil and a crime against humanity to allow homosexuals and their teachings to prey upon children and drive the state to encourage and teach the homosexual life style upon children. It is obscene for the federal government to extent equal protection to homosexuals and force the host community at large to their parasitic and inherently decadent life style.

Parenting comes with it much responsibility. Homosexuals take the convenient easy path and selfishly bypass that responsibility. When  young men and women court, there is the prospect of that responsibility, met with expectations of that responsibility, and the fulfillment of life with the procreating of children. Raising children for 18 years is a real big deal and take allot of unselfish effort. Even before there were civilizations, monogamy was practiced, and done so for an indispensable reason, to maintain a population and as well as civilization. As civilization and religion rose upon the planet, marriage between a man and woman took an important and rightful place in human culture, with public vows, ceremony, and required consummation, all directed towards cementing responsibility for creating that next generation of human beings. Homosexual relationships, at their center, are inherently irresponsible relationships as there is no consummation and vows directed towards spending lives together for the primary purpose of generating the next generation of citizens, tax payers and human beings. There is a reason why the homosexual community has its roots in the San Francisco gay disco bars and the irresponsibility of cheap tricks and love boys. The corruption of society, from Constitutional plain language interpretations, to printable counterfeiting fiat money, to market manipulation and rigging, to the grotesque enslaving welfare state, are all forms of irresponsibility, now pervasive, as is the homosexual community. Modernly, this inherently irresponsible life style is now forced upon the viable host population being corrupted generally by totalitarianism at the federal level, while corrupting the little minds of their children to alternative life styles, that must by definition, when followed to its logical conclusion, defeat civilization and hence mankind, as totalitarianism defeat Constitutional and Revolutionary Freedoms as homosexuality defeats procreation of civilization. The 100 year slide into decadence is both governmental and personal. Homosexual acceptance is a sign of this general continued slide into societal decadence.

Gay marriages are simply ridiculous and are counter productive to legitimate state interests, and the state should not be promoting its own societal demise. Rather, if a state wants to form civil unions between any two adults, under freedom of contract, where the contract provides life long sharing, such civil union contracts, they can be honored in the civil courts, not the family law courts. The states of a republic can then extend rights to those of civil union contracts, such as, permitting hospital visits by partners in a civil union contract. The states can grant permits for sparkling parades if it so chooses. Its time that some common sense be applied to the gay marriage issue, and stop the nonsense.

Gay Marriage, is not only a contradiction in terms, but it just sounds stupid. I mean, do two gay boys, mid-20s, who met hustling tricks through peep holes in gay disco bars, between shirtless disco dances, between pink margaritas, between ecstasy hits, with T-shirts bobbling to the rhythm, dangling from blue jean back pockets, under sparkling disco balls, really want to pay through the nose, the lawyers, to fight over goochi poochie couches, electrical phallic tools, and fluffy kitties in family law courts, giving comedy central a new twist?  Jon Stewart would go nuts. If you examine people, they had a physical presence in a national origin, they are men and woman, they have races, and they orally express a creed, including atheists, hence, equal protection, 4, 13, 14 19 amendments, the correct federal limit, enforceable by clear acts. Does sexual orientation include Montana sheep herders? If not, why not? How do you tell, without banging down bedroom or barn doors of private homes and ranches? I see it all for what it is, and a national policy regarding gay couples, is nothing more than cold realization of the situation and common sense solution application.

So, my cousin comes into town for a month vacation, young 20s, good looking, and on the hunt, as any normal young 20s would be. She goes out to Palm Springs CA with a girlfriend for a visit and look see. She comes back, rather disappointed. Apparently Palm Springs these days is full of homosexuals. They have taken over, apparently. Curiously, in my town of Laguna Beach, its homosexual community is moving out as well, or at least it seems. Apparently, gay in your face is not good for the local merchants, by and large, after many years of pandering tolerance. The notorious gay disco club has been shut down, and their are less predators out on the streets, though you still see the older ones, two by twos, obvious to anyone. At first the comic routine was funny, the drag queen performing on stage, and we all got a little laugh out of that. Then they parade downtown in front of the children, and we are taken back. Then they come out of closet and on to main beach, strutting their public affectionate stuff. At first it seem like, well they have a right, and you wave the US flag, but after a while, it become offensive and pervasive. The push the gay life style intentionally upon others. Then you have to hire them, to sit next to you, like it or not, or the government will shut your business down. Then you have to work next to them, or quit your job. One would think that an intention lisp would be a mark of shame, but it aint. Then you have the state enabling gay marriages, and screwing up little minds that have trouble just figuring out what life is all about. After a while, the totality of it all starts to build resentment and hostility towards in your face sodomite life styles, that must, by definition be parasitic, for if every one was gay, there would be no next generation of tax payers, the only significant state interest, where laws are now enacted that encourage medical diseases and societal demise, pandered by politicians seeking short term political power at the expense of long term health of society.

The solution is not demeaning traditional marriage, causing conflict and strife, but state court enforceable civil unions. 
When gays attack marriage, families, religion, parents, and kids, when it really none of their business, they cause resentment, anger and gay bashing. The solution is social engineering by voter consent and respect for state laws, and respecting and tolerating others, thus earning respect and tolerance in return.  In my town, gays dont attack traditional marriage, religion, or parents, or try to indoctrinate my kids, and thereby respect others, and in return, we are mutually respecting and tolerant good friends. Seems simple enough to get along. 

Gay Activists at the State Level

DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa's Supreme Court unanimously struck down the state's gay marriage ban on Friday, making Iowa the third state where same-sex couples can tie the knot. In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman. "The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

Of course, some libertarians may buy into gay marriage rights. This is a false sense of liberty. There is always the balancing act between  individual freedoms and the protection of society as a whole. If gays want to unite, and not parade in front of our children, hence doing  lesser harm to society, then government banging down doors to prevent sodomy may be to intrusive, in the balance. However, when it comes to the AIDS epidemic, the justification for sodomy laws becomes clear, in the balance. So, where individual freedoms are restricted by law, there must be clear dangers to society for justification.

The restrictions of gay marriages or gay street parades forms of expression, should be viewed in the balancing acts. The family unit, the core strength of any society, is under assault. Do we really want to teach our children that homosexual relationships are so sacred that we must enact laws to resurrect from nowhere, gay marriages and confuse our children? The control of marriage by the states, and the voters, is key in maintaining the social harmony, the core family unit, the backbone of any strong society. The voters will speak. Most agree, that if you destroy traditional marriage, as now occurring, then you open the door to even more, debilitation social behavior, and also aid the destruction of the moral fiber of our or any society, over the long run. We have elicit fornication spreading disease. We have drug epidemics. We have irresponsible citizens, abandoning children, increasingly born out of wedlock. We have drug induced dance clubs and sex orgies spreading drugs and disease and decadent behavior. The voters recognize these truths. By effectively destroying marriage, and its responsibility, we would then have a society teaching our children irresponsible behavior as the  norm, with no anchor or orientation upon which to struggle for societal strength. Gay marriages are inherently destructive of societal strength when children are indoctrination violating parental rights. Restriction of gay marriages is a proper balance between freedom and danger, that does not restrict liberty, in the balance. Libertarian support of gay marriages is misguided, as such. One should not have the liberty to murder, nor should a class of citizens have the liberty to destroy marriage as the cradle of child rearing, leading to the moral degradation of society and social order.

The states have traditionally controlled marriage laws. In the end, we must let the state voters decide the local issues of marriage. If the voters approve gay marriage, then so be it, and they will live with the consequences of that vote, and on every street corner, in their state, and if gay marriage is banned but civil unions allowed, then so be it, as a voter recognized balance between right to control marital status and the harm of any change to that status. So, liberty and freedom has traditionally been balanced by the states re marriage. Libertarians who seek to open up marriage laws to gays, do not believe in parental rights and parent liberty as envisioned by our founding fathers, and do not respect states rights, but rather, seek liberty at all costs, and that cost can be to expensive. Liberty must always have some outer bound, the question being, where is the proper bound of liberties. By and large, the bounds are found within the states themselves, under states rights, and should not be dictated by federal elitists in DC under centralized totalitarian controls.

State governments do not have a vested legitimate interests in securing marriage rights of gays who do not procreate the generation of tax paying citizens. There is no reason for the federal government to dictate to the states what should be their marriage laws. On this basis, a constitutional amendment may be approved or rejected by the voters defining marriage or equal protection for preferences. But if approved by the voters, it should become the law of the land. States rights control local marriage laws. Laws enacted by voters to restrict marriage to traditional definitions, to limit the dangers of social corruption, and to limit state funding and protection of perceived debilitating behavior, are sufficient to justify maintenance of gay marriage bans, in the balance, by the states, as voter approved, and are well supported by our traditional values and founding father sense of liberties. In my view, there is simply no legitimate need, in the balance, for gay marriages, as freedom of contract would not otherwise generally provide to protect agreements between consenting adults. If two gays want to share a home and its expenses, under an enforceable contract, there should be no objection to that. But, they do not have the freedom, nor should they have the right to state support of their relationship. Hence, freedom is not absolute, but we must be on guard to always limit unnecessary invasions of our freedoms by the state. Hence, there is no duplicity in defining traditional marriages, limiting gay rights to unions, yet, seeking traditional freedoms and liberties from government.

Gay marriages are not inherent human rights, deserving special protection. On the contrary, homosexual behaviour has been regarded, during the ascent of man, as destructive to the family, and states' right restriction of marriage to procreating couples has been the law of man and the state, from time immemorial, under cultural evolution. Today, political panderers at the federal level seeking votes and causing social strife as totalitarian elitists apparently want decide for the people what is best, and is suspect do unconstitutional social engineering objectives. The federal government wants to enslave all, to maintain order, suppressing our individualism, and to the extent government can. Its all about control and pandered votes. Do these gays really want to have the government in their faces deciding personal issues under marriage laws between them and their respective rights, when they can not possibly procreate? 

Its about making us all absolutely equal, contrary to our individualism, and our generic sex, or our age, or our race, or any other thing else that makes us the individuals we are. If we treat and educate all boys and girls, as if they were "ITS"Q, then more power to the government, and less to our freedoms under our enslaving totalitarianism. 

I do have a couple of gay friends, here in gay town, laguna beach California. They however, dont push their live style off onto others, they dont hit on me, they dont parade, they dont target my children. Some are log cabin boys, who want low taxes and sound budgets. While I dont approve of their life style, I respect them for respecting me, marriage, and society as whole. There are gays out there who really do respect my rights, and our national traditions, and do understand that the need to preserve the CORE STRENGTH of any society. But, the gay marriage push, in my view, is really nothing more, than the elitist pandering of votes. My gay friends, are stand up citizens, even if walking on the wild side. I respect them, for it, because they respect me, my rights, our traditional marriages, and our society. 
I submit that the gay marriage issue, is not really a gay issue, but a vote pandering means to cement political power. I submit that there are sufficient detrimental affects from gay life styles, that protection of traditional marriage and children is a suitable balance between rights of the few and the harm to the many and to the core of society. I submit that a constitutional ban on gay marriages is consistent with our heritage and transitional values and is implicit in our constitution. I submit that states rights should be respected as voted by the voters, and that any reversal by the courts is judicial fiat, judicial legislation, a breach of trust of the people, a violation of oaths to up hold the Constitution, a crime perpetrated by supreme court judges, a failure to uphold the rule of law, a failure to respect voted approved laws, and an elitist judiciary power play over the people. Simply put, the judges are criminals, in my view, and should be impeached. I submit that libertarian views of gay marriage is not liberty for gays, but to the contrary, is an imposition of marital laws over and an unnecessary enslavement of gay relationships. I submit that gay marriages are unnecessary and can be resolved by simple freedom of contract. I submit that the gay marriage push, is a totalitarian push by the DC elitists trying to control every aspect of our lives while pandering votes, causing strife to cement political power. 

Trust me on this, the framers of the US and states constitutions, did not possibly consider gay relationships would even be considered a marriage. It would have been just to preposterous at the time, yet despite that, federal courts violate constitutional law. I dont care what the gay do be behind closed doors or in private dance clubs, but when they do it in the streets, and are publicly sanctioned by legislating judges, affecting the education and moral upbringing of our children, then, I hold the line, and oppose such liberalization. State approved and protected gay life styles, promoting dilution of institutions and values should not be the law of the land. Gay relationships, protected by state civil contracts, under freedom of contract and association, is constitutional and provides lawful means of protecting gay relationships, within the Republic framework of the constitution. 
This pandering is a continuation of the destruction of America's heritage, traditions, culture, morality, and strength. A no-fault no-rules no-standard culture driven by the PC crowd will have its degrading affects. Just like honest real money gold leads to freedom and democratic capitalism, moral family structures of the husband-wife-children leads to increased happiness and sound citizens and homes, and with both, increased productivity and less enslaving socialistic corruption. Is it curious how real honest money and moral family values go hand in hand to strengthen the productivity and overall well being of a society.

The gay issue, purportedly based on love, spews allot of hate and anger, on the streets and in your face, 
when politicians, left and right, pander it up, to rally bases, for political power.

I feel love Donna Summer