An open letter to the Supreme Court of the United States of America

Submitted by a friend of RenewAmerica

We the People, by the authority vested in us by the Declaration of Independence and secured as unalienable rights by the laws of the U.S. Constitution, do hereby respectfully request the Supreme Court of the United States uphold and defend the self-evident truths by which our authority as a nation is founded.

No one in society is in any position to make a decision on Same Sex Marriage Equality until the underlying basis of the argument defining Same Sex Marriage Equality put forth by the LGBT community is made clear to everyone in society. While the inconsistencies in the Same Sex Marriage Equality argument seem to have escaped the "experts," they are patently obvious to the lay observers who are watching the sexual revolution, evolution, devolution from a distance. Since this is an open and free society, we do hereby drop our thoughts and questions into the discussion and request our opinions be taken with the weight of the widow's mite and an eye on the millions of dollars of our hard earned tax monies that have been spent on these cases in federal and state courts; keep it in mind that we want a refund.

The argument thus far has been a rather confusing and emotionally-charged attack on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as it defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and in general, the argument has been directed at questioning if the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is discriminatory toward the LGBT community and as such is it a violation of the LGBT community's civil rights.

At the Supreme Court level, the DOMA argument, as presented by attorney Roberta Kaplan, addresses a possible conspiracy to discriminate against the LGBT community by the House of Representatives, who brought forth and passed the bill by a majority vote and then sent it to the Senate. At the Senate level, over 80 U.S. Senators passed DOMA, which was then signed by the President of the United States at the time, William Jefferson Clinton. Was that a discriminatory action is the first question.

In the lower courts, the Same Sex Marriage Equality argument stated that the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is based on outdated, traditional religious morals, and on that basis, is discriminatory towards LGBTs. Is it true that the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is based on outdated, traditional religious morals is the second question.

Question one

To address question number one: If the defense of the people of the United States was to clarify that the word "marriage" defines the relationship between one man and one woman — and it is those to whom the word refers in all federal government laws — and to set that definition down clearly in a document named the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), in response to an offense by the LGBT community in the courts that questioned exactly to whom the term "marriage" refers, can that defense then be construed as a discriminatory conspiracy to remove rights that heretofore never existed from LGBT people?

The first leg of the argument in the lower courts was to demonstrate that as a group, LGBT people were excluded from marriage because of discrimination. To make that argument, LGBT people had to show how they constituted a "suspect class" for "Civil Rights" based on "immutable characteristics" as defined in the "Equal Protection Clause." To address "immutability," the argument was put forward that since the "Equal Protection Clause" extends to religion and age, it was contended that they were not immutable characteristics, because like "sexual orientation," age changes, as do religious affiliations. The problem is that "age changes" is an immutable characteristic of all human beings, as is the fact that all human beings "change their minds" about their religious opinions and beliefs. It is not a fact that all human beings change their "sexual orientation" and therefore that cannot be considered a "suspect class."

This is more like playing "Twister" than engaging in a serious logical argument.

It remains unclear how Lesbians, Gay men, Bisexual and Transgendered people should constitute a "suspect class" of "sexual orientation" that distinguishes itself from among other groupings with identifiable but differing "sexual orientations." Is the distinction related to what is legal v. illegal? Are those laws based on consent? Harm? Age? Outdated traditional religious morals?

Since the term "sexual orientation" was coined by Alfred Kinsey, do you think it would be a good idea to actually review the questionable research he produced, as well as the criminal content of his pedophile research, before rendering an opinion? We're not being facetious — a lot of assumptions are being made based on sex research by a man who would be imprisoned today for aiding and abetting pedophiles during his sex research. We believe the F.B.I., upon congressional request, could subpoena the actual research from the vault at the Kinsey Institute. We'd like to see it all published in the newspapers of record in every city and state across the country so we can all read it — in installments, of course.

Immutability cannot define a "class" self-identified by a focus on the idea of "sexual physical activity," "sexuality," "sexual orientation," or "physical activity" without creating a "special class" whose "rights" take precedence and, thereby, create a "caste system" — based on sex. Besides, it is stretching the bounds of reason to consider and judge that only one theory of "sexual orientation" be used for the purposes of "immutability." The research is hardly conclusive, and some data suggest that much of the "trend" may be reflective of societal beliefs and pronunciations akin to others in history: demonic possession, the science of phrenology, alien abduction, visitations from spirits, the hysteria that brought us the witch hunts.

If we are to separate people into classes based on how they "feel about their sexuality" or what they "think about their sexuality," we are rendering a subjective judgment on which "feelings" and "thoughts" on sexuality are allowable for greater society by law and, consequently, declaring illegal and criminal certain opinions — by what authority are these laws being dictated to us? It's purely a political stance and hardly a scientific fact. In society today, any opinion that homosexuality is an anomaly has been raised to the level of "criminal"; any attack by LGBTs on greater society against moral principles, religious tenets and virtue is allowable because they have rendered it all discriminatory against their community's behavior.

Parsing the law to this extent in an effort to prove a "sexually based" discriminatory "exclusion" of two men or two women from a human relationship named "marriage" — which is defined as being between a man and a woman — is tantamount to men claiming a "sexually based" discriminatory "exclusion" from the human relationship named "Mother," which is defined as being between a woman and her children. If the definition of marriage is discriminatory, then so is the definition of mother, father, sister, brother, uncle and aunt, because to define any relationship means it must include what it refers to and exclude what it does not refer to, or it is not a definition.

In this view, the term Same Sex Marriage Equality is an oxymoron. The arguments fail to produce evidence that show that there are any constitutional parameters or a historic precedence that ever sought to recognize, protect, uphold, and acknowledge that it is "sexual physical activity" between any two consenting adults that ever defined the word marriage.

The Same Sex Marriage Equality's comparative analogy to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's appears to be a fallacy in the argument as well. Decriminalizing homosexual sexual behavior between two consenting adults in the landmark Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas does not equate the content of that case's focus on privacy rights extended to include homosexual consensual sex with the civil rights marriage case of Loving v. Virginia. Loving v. Virginia resolved a discriminatory law intentionally written to prevent racial intermarriage between one man and one woman. It is well-established throughout human history that a man and a woman of different races, classes, and socio-economic status were never before prevented from marrying unless laws were purposefully written to prevent such marriages as in the Statutes of Kilkenny, the Jim Crow Laws, and the Nuremberg Laws.

If clarifying the legal and historic definition of the word marriage in the context of the Constitution is indeed the LGBT's argument of discrimination against DOMA, then, it is well established that because the word never referred to LGBT people, it is as discriminatory as any other word that carries an exacting definition, including the term "homosexual," which by its very definition excludes "heterosexuals."

Perhaps more attention should be focused on why a word does not exist defining the parameters of LGBT relationships, which is noticeably absent from current arguments of fact and in all of human history. The absence of such a term cannot be blamed on the presence of the term marriage. And, judging the presence of the term marriage and subjecting the relationship to major "judgments" by using divorce statistics or discussing its successes and its failures and suggesting how LGBT people would improve it, cannot be taken seriously or even be relevant coming from a group who has failed to ever establish parameters of their own relationships, who has failed to even name their relationships, and who still have no terms of endearment for their "loved" one without borrowing and redefining wife and husband.

The entire argument is unfounded. DOMA was not a discriminatory conspiracy by the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, the United States Department of Justice, or the Office of the President of the United States of America against the LGBT community, but rather the clarification of the definition of the name of the human relationship between one man and one woman that was being attacked for existing.

Instead, what should be questioned is the fact that the LGBT case against DOMA was an attack on the integrity of one's fellow man, who was made to protect and defend a cherished human institution from an onslaught that's comparable to barbarians at the gate — in modern parlance, we refer to those who attack others who are not bothering anyone "bullies." If the victim today defends himself from the bully, the bully claims "victimhood?"

Question two

To address question number two: That the LGBT community's argument for Marriage Equality in the lower courts consisted of positioning that the definition of the term marriage as being between one man and one woman is discriminatory because that definition, according to their assertion, is based on outdated, traditional religious morals (Varnum v. Brien [Iowa 2009]; Perry v. Brown [California — Proposition 8]).

By linking traditional religion as the author of the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman, and then declaring the definition itself discriminatory to the LGBT community because it is based on outdated, traditional religious morals, they demonstrate two things in this pretextual argument. The first is: On what authority was it declared that the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is defined and authored only by traditional religions? The second is: On what authority do they declare that traditional religions have outdated morals?

To address the first issue: Is it true that "traditional religion" is the only possible reason for the definition of marriage to be between one man and one woman? If that were true, then all of the U.S. laws and all of our definitions of universal principles based on self-evident truth that constitute our idea of a civil society must too be based on outmoded, traditional religious morals, because they too are all reflected in Judeo-Christian religious traditions.

Our laws are not based on religious beliefs. To make that assumption in argument is to construct a hypothesis contrary to fact based on inductive or "bottom up" reasoning and take the fact that religions share these principles as the basis for the existence of such principles and, therefore, the basis of the definition of marriage. Rather, the foundational principles and laws constructed by the United States are reflective of deductive human reasoning — all the shared activities and endeavors historically that constitute the values in a "civil" society will be reflected in the structures mankind erects and that include his religions, moral tenets, and philosophies, and excludes philosophies that have proven detrimental to civil societies.

So the answer is no. The definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman was not authored by traditional religions. Marriage is the name of the relationship fostered between one man and one woman, defined by all humanity, historically, before traditional religions and before organized governments — as concrete evidence from archeological and anthropological studies testifies. The question itself is akin to asking who named the sky and its color blue and crediting only one segment of humanity in order to place blame. Courting the "name" of a relationship by condemning its very existence is an interesting strategy.

To address the second issue: By what authority is the LGBT community declaring that traditional religions have outdated morals? That is not a reasoned judgment based on law. Rather it is an ideological accusation based on the rejection of traditional religious morals — whether or not one agrees with traditional religious beliefs should not be the basis of this argument. But it is. And the reason it is is because this is a religious argument which seeks to pit one set of religious belief systems against another: outmoded, traditional, religious moral ones v. an updated, modern, deity denying, amoral one.

The authority that forms the basis of the Same Sex Marriage Equality argument, and from whose authority the LGBT community has "judged" traditional religious morals to be outdated and has obviously rejected them, can be found listed in the tenets of "belief" stated in the Humanist manifestos. (Humanist Manifesto is the title of three manifestos laying out a Humanist worldview. They are the original Humanist Manifesto (1933, often referred to as Humanist Manifesto I); the Humanist Manifesto II (1973) [see also A Declaration of Interdependence: A New Global Ethics (1988) and Humanist Manifesto 2000]; and Humanism and Its Aspirations (2003, a.k.a. Humanist Manifesto III). The Manifesto originally arose from religious Humanism, though secular Humanists also signed.)

This "religious" prong of the Same Sex Marriage Equality argument contends that our laws regarding marriage violate the establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment because it appears that the definition of marriage agrees with Judeo-Christian traditional religions. Our laws do agree with traditional religions insofar as they are reflective of self-evident truths, and no further.

It is not plausible for the U.S. Constitution to reflect ever-"evolving" philosophies that are contrary to self-evident truths. Whether or not a philosophy, a set of tenets, or a worldview are reflective of what mankind knows to be universal truths in the laws of nature and in the laws of the universe is the standard by which our civil society rests. The problem in the LGBT discrimination rationale is that the self-evident truths recognized in traditional religions and philosophies, and which underlie our Constitution, exist outside of their opinion, just as do the laws of gravity — and the definition of the word "gravity."

To rewrite the definition of the word marriage based on Secular Humanism's "evolving religious belief system" would be a violation of the establishment of religion clause and therefore an unconstitutional promotion of a "particular" religious belief. Until such evolution concludes, laws cannot be set with no concrete rational basis for making decisions other than a "theoretical" set of tenets opposite to those upon which our Constitution was founded. Merely denying that self-evident truths exist does not meet the standard of scrutiny that our laws have undergone in the last 200 years.

The landmark 172-page ruling in the case of Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Ala., affirmed that Secular Humanism constitutes an establishment of religion sponsored and sanctioned by the state, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution of the United States. Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 827 F.2d 684 (11th Cir. 1987) was a lawsuit in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Mobile, Alabama, schools could use textbooks which purportedly promoted "secular humanism."

Historic opportunity for correction

Not recognizing that it is this radical Secular Humanistic authority that underpins these arguments — because their presence is not explicitly stated but rather implied by the very nature of the judgments rendered within the texts of the arguments (and it is by this inference that the rationality of the arguments themselves becomes suspect, and from which position they have no basis in history, law or reality, but are instead an example of extremist religious fervor, theoretically radical in nature and intended to impose beliefs, actions, behaviors, and institute laws on its own behalf that undermine freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, freedom from oppression by governmental agencies and whose authority now dictates unrestrained and incognito) — is to continue in ignorance the negligence of the Supreme Court in allowing a loophole to remain open by not recognizing the radical Secular Humanistic belief system's encroachment and influence on society when it was left immune to the establishment clause.

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to once again place the authority for our laws squarely back on constitutional grounds. Radical Secular Humanists have the freedom to evolve in their ethical societies and in the public square without demanding society's conversion.

For there is no other explanation for the vitriol projected at American citizens from those who adhere to the elitist principles of Moral Relativism and a Secular Humanistic societal approach, except that it relates to a "belief" system that adherents have found is supported and promoted by governmental agencies and representatives as the established philosophy of the United States of America, and from which basis it was announced that DOMA was unconstitutional. The oppression of all other religious philosophies, all other traditional societal structures, all other philosophies, all other recognizable freedoms of open and fair debate have come under attack by this "new" religious fervor.

In this ever "evolving" belief system, every single law in our Constitution can be re-interpreted as being discriminatory based on erroneous assumptions from foregone conclusions — all of which seem to be the antithesis of law and order. The tenets of Moral Relativism, which Secular Humanism embraces, seeks a totalitarian anarchy under the guise of its discriminatory policies of "tolerance" for its views only and militantly seeks through an unprecedented propaganda campaign of political correctness and enforced by governmental laws and agencies, to silence and force through legal means the mandatory dismantling of societal moral structures under the accusation of discrimination for all organizations that oppose its tenets and in the guise of fairness and objectivity.

Are "We the People" asked to deny that the self-evident truths that underlie the principles of morality set forth in our founding documents exist? If we are unaware of the most basic question contained in this argument, then we fail as a civilized society who had every possible attack against such civil society addressed for us in brilliant historic craftsmanship by statesmen whose understanding of how tyrannical, governmentally established ideologies and oppressions happen — incrementally and couched in terms palatable to the "common good." Echoes of rhetoric declaring another "scapegoat" and the "rights" of another "special class" can be heard throughout this rhetoric.

Isn't it true that we have recently become a "secular" society just from want of properly correcting that term to what we have been defined as from our founding — a "civil" society? Hasn't the connotation of the term "secular" taken on greater authority than suggested by its definition?

And, finally, what is it that defines marriage between one man and one woman as the principal unit that binds a civil society? Is it that it is pro-creative? Is it that it is between a man and a woman? Is it about love, kindness, understanding, honesty, and virtue? Does it include an aspect of sexuality? Why is marriage viewed as the standard bearer in all human relationships and takes precedence over friendship, familial bonds, and parenthood? Why is it the relationship whose incredible power we all hope our children will one day have the opportunity to be party to?

Marriage is Pro-Creation. It is in favor of the two different human beings that exist in the world — man and woman; it is the synthesis of humanity. Marriage is the personification of the inner and outer workings of nature, as is self-evident in all creation. Whether or not a man and woman have a child is not the point. The point is that marriage underpins the selflessness in understanding between the sexes privately and intimately, and that is how men and women gain an understanding of each other in order to form a civilized society that is inclusive of the other.

Marriage represents the whole of humanity in a microcosm. Its power for good is much greater than the simplistic definition that marriage is just about sex — that is just a very basic physical part of the extremely complex intellectual, emotional, and psychological parameters necessary to understand the complete difference of the two beings involved in a man and woman's relationship. Marriage requires the denial of the self in order to understand the needs of the other completely different human being who shares the planet. Success in a marriage means that all mankind benefits from the understanding one man and one woman contribute to mankind's understanding of all human beings and how each contributes the differing but equal attributes inherent in their natures to each other, to society, to the children representative of the other, and it fosters a love for those others that resemble the spouse.

Same Sex Marriage Equality is Anti-Creation. It is the complete antithesis of marriage. It encourages the misunderstandings of the different sexes. It believes in the superiority of the same sex. It fosters and encourages disdain for the other half of the human race. It encompasses the rejection of the other, different and opposite sex. It is the embodiment of segregation of the sexes and gender discrimination. It teaches that tolerance means that only those who adhere to their evolving beliefs are to be tolerated and every other system of belief is therefore discriminatory against them. From the LGBT community, there is a constant divisive attack against any and all "traditional" families, values, morals, religious beliefs, virtues, and societal structures that acknowledge and confirm the existence of self-evident truths, and all are labeled "homophobic."

That concentrating, especially in the armed forces, on the criminality of proselytizing on the "word of God," whereas proselytizing, especially in schools, on the freedom to engage in "sexual activity" is not, lends itself to a distinction based on judging the "value" of what it is one "worships" — has sex become the new idol of America?

Perhaps most disturbing is the voluminous production of literature with unverified research marketed to school children with a focus on "sexuality" to the exclusion of all other human endeavors. These facts are quite alarming. There seems little kindness and compassion in such activity from a community that continually and hypocritically project onto greater society accusations of the very incivilities apparent within itself.

The sexual double entendre of the LGBT community's rallying plea, "We should be able to love whomever we choose," is an explicit request that "sexual rights" trump all constitutional "Conscience Protections" by redefining through a lens of moral relativism the term conscience. Conscience Protections were instituted to safeguard those who seek to defend the self-evident truths announced in the Declaration of Independence and secured by the Constitution from an attack against them by forces unscrupulous. Moral relativism is the antithesis of self-evident truths and is therefore, by definition, such a force.

Isn't it true that what the LGBT community seeks and explicitly requests is that the parameters defining marriage must now be rewritten to comply with the "love" that comes from the imagined "benefits of infidelity" as so aptly described by LGBT activist Dan Savage;[1] that our identity and self-worth being confirmed through "sexual encounters," as stated by Andrew Sullivan;[2] that the definition of "traditional" marriage be destroyed, as suggested by Masha Gessen;[3] and that those proselytizing religion in the military, inasmuch as it agrees with the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence and in the U.S. Constitution and disagrees with the tenets of Secular Humanism and moral relativism, be court-martialed, as argues Mikey Weinstein.[4]

As the highest court in the land, whose existence was instituted as the judicial branch of oversight to our executive and legislative branches, you have vowed by solemn oath to uphold the constitutional rights of the people of the United States to protect them from tyranny. The only duties we see to be performed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the two cases regarding Same Sex Marriage Equality — United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry — is to confirm that the self-evident truths our Constitution rests on exist and place Secular Humanism under the establishment of religion clause.

And, yes, John Roberts, it is your job to protect the American people from those who falsely represent themselves when they run for office. And, yes, John Roberts, it will take courage and integrity to right a few wrongs for which the Supreme Court of the United States is solely responsible. And, yes, John Roberts, if a "penalty" can suddenly be interpreted as a "tax," then an entrenched, ideological totalitarian philosophy — even if you agree with its tenets — can be interpreted as a "religion."

For our freedom of speech has been usurped by an unprecedented propaganda campaign of politically-correct, Secular Humanistic principles of moral relativism that daily threatens all who do not convert by manipulating and reinterpreting laws to suit its own ideologies without ever identifying its authority. We've had it with this charade.

And, we do sincerely hope we finally put to rest the question: "Where's the harm?"

Sincerely,

We the People of the United States of America