Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
- Thread starter
- #61
"Sex" in the context of civil rights refers to one's gender. That was just clarified in Hively v Ivy Tech. In Obergefell, the Court's liberal pockets Justices attempted to insert a trojan horse in legal terminology with those paragraphs below, where they wove the words "sex" (as in "same-sex"..."same-gender") with sexual behaviors aka sexual orientation. (singular, limited JUST to homosexuals, their pet favorites apparently). That the court was so wilfully myopic as to only discuss one of many sexual orientations, all in the same category (repugnant to the majority) is gross judicial negligence. THEY KNEW as they wrote the paragraph below that polygamists, for example, were already in the process of challenging their marriage case in the lower courts. Particularly Brown v Utah. So THEY KNEW that when they ratified (it will be found they overstepped by creating a behavior, just some but not others, as "class") Obergefell and affixed it to the Constitution, that they were also at the same moment legalizing ALL sexual orientations repugnant to the majority and not just their pet favorites. 5 people on the Supreme Court do not get to tease away one repugnant sexual orientation from all the other repugnant sexual orientations. That was a Royal Decree, not a Court verdict.
What the Court said in Obergefell was "never mind how the majority of each state feels about the PRIVILIGE' of marriage (since we are only including some but not other repugnant sex behaviors), We Justices hereby override the majority of each state, while still maintaining marriage is a privilege, and we insert just some sexual orientations the states object to, while others the states may still regulate away from marriage." That is an arbitrary decree. It was outside their power to say so and to do so.
And we haven't even gotten into how that Decree affects the other parties who have an implied share in the marriage contract: children. They were systematically via that Royal Decree, stripped via contract and cement of law, of even the hope of either a mother or father for life. And, they had no representation at Obergefell: the marriage contract proposed revision hearing.
USSC Trojan Horse Terminology paragraphs:
***************
(pages 7-8)
*******
This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experiences with the rights of gays and lesbians. Until the mid-20th century, same-sex intimacy long had been condemned as immoral by the state itself in most Western nations, a belief often embodied in the criminal law. For this reason, among others, many persons did not deem homosexuals to have dignity in their own distinct identity. A truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken. Even when a greater awareness of the humanity and integrity of homosexual persons came in the period after World War II, the argument that gays and lesbians had a just claim to dignity was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions. Same-sex intimacy remained a crime in many States. Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate. See Brief for Organization of American Historians as Amicus Curiae
5–28. For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexuality was treated as an illness. When the American Psychiatric Association published the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder, a position adhered to until1973. See Position Statement on Homosexuality and Civil
Rights, 1973, in 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 497 (1974). Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as
Amici Curiae
7–17. In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance. As a result, questions about the rights of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law.
***********
You know, there's a reason the Court didn't just pick one term like "gays and lesbians" or "same sex" and just stick with it throughout the two consecutive paragraphs there. And that stunt was just comically obvious. It was their blatant attempt to weave gender in with sexual behavior in legal protections. It failed thanks to Hively v Ivy Tech...
