Windsor decision is based on a lie written into New York Marriage Equality Act

Rendering Windsor, Hollingsworth and Obergefell decisions moot

Submitted by a friend of RenewAmerica

Baker v Nelson Stands as SCOTUS Precedent Applicable in Every State; DOMA Section 3 Stands as Federal Law

"Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive"

– Sir Walter Scott

The U.S. Constitution could not be any clearer. The very first words, after the Preamble, are these "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

As I followed the SCOTUS arguments on the SSM Obergefell case [1] on April 28, 2015, I looked up a reference made to the majority opinion in Windsor stating that with [marriage] it is the limitation to opposite sex couples that has always been thought fundamental (133 S. Ct. at 2689 III). As I was reading the Windsor opinion, at the bottom of the above referenced page citation, it said New York's citizens had a state-wide deliberative process prior to enacting the Marriage Equality Act. That is not correct. I live in New York and I don't remember any state-wide deliberative process among the citizenry regarding the issue of same sex marriage. To set the record straight for the purposes of historical accuracy, SCOTUS needs to change that error. Here's that excerpt from the Windsor majority opinion:

"After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood. See Marriage Equality Act, 2011 N.Y. Laws 749 (codified at N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law Ann. §§ 10 – a, 10 – b, 13 (West 2013))." [2]

The citizens of New York were not privy to any such deliberations; never were given the opportunity to deliberate any same sex marriage arguments; never perceived Marriage between one man and one woman as an injustice. Apparently, our NYS Constitution, Domestic Relations Laws, NYS Court of Appeals decisions were not enough to counter Andrew Cuomo's deceitful political manipulations armed with the threats found in the Moreland Commission documents being combed through now by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara and handing down indictments that Andrew Cuomo failed to follow through on. [A 1]

The New York Legislature claims to have enlarged the definition of marriage – which means on the road to Motherhood – to correct an injustice? The definition of a word is unjust? Certainly no one in the human race had earlier known or understood the definition of the word marriage to be unjust because it is not unjust. If the state believes it needed to correct the definition of marriage because it was unjust, then the state and the federal government and the SCOTUS are liable to pay reparations to anyone and everyone who ever applied for and received any marriage license under the definition of marriage, since, as an unjust definition in law that no one in the entire country knew the meaning of, or understood previously that the definition of the word marriage was unjust while it was being actively applied in courts of law, renders any legal license given or dissolved under that previously erroneous and unjust definition to now be moot. That is what a precedent such as this does. So no civil laws of marriage and no divorce decrees rendered under that unjust definition of marriage in law could possibly still apply if, in fact, the definition of marriage was unjust or discriminatory in its definition. To state that it was, as a fact, would require all rationality and reason be suspended which is the definition of insanity.

Animus is another word that has a definition that has been bandied about recently. Animus is defined as hatred. Hatred finds its roots in envy, not fear. It is the LGBTQ lobby that is envious of marriage; so the animus is from them towards the definition of the word marriage and that human relationship defined as being limited to being between one man and one woman, not visa versa. Just as the definition of the human relationship mother is defined as being limited to being between a woman and her children and excludes all others in order for it or any other definition to define a word so that as human beings sharing a language, we all understand what we are talking about. Obviously, this is not the case in the courts or among our illustrative politicians, some of whom dictate sophistry as revelation. The Latin roots of the word marriage (like the word carriage meaning to lift or transport on the road) means on the road to MOTHERHOOD.

There was no state wide deliberative process among the citizens of New York regarding same sex marriage. Here is a brief history of the climate created in New York which preceded and precipitated the enactment of same sex marriage against all the laws in the entire state of New York designed to protect the people of the state from exactly what happened – an unconstitutional usurpation of law imposing moral relativism upon every citizen of the state and every child in every school in the state with the full weight of state enforcement should anyone voice an opinion in opposition to the state's tyrannical Governor Andrew Cuomo.

I remember the Marriage Equality Act vote happened at 10 or 11 p.m. on a Friday night, and that the vote was surrounded by very questionable activities after Gov. Cuomo called a "message of necessity."

"Messages of necessity allow the Legislature and governor to negotiate deals on bills and then bring them up at the last minute for passage before the state Assembly and Senate. They are often used late in legislative sessions when last-minute deal-making is common between the governor and Legislature.

Reform groups say that the messages abuse the legislative process and allow for bills to emerge for final passage with little or no public scrutiny." [2A]

– declaring the vote a dire emergency [what constituted the emergency is a mystery] – thereby changing procedural rules. Here's that history :

"On June 15, 2011, the New York State Assembly passed the Marriage Equality Act by a margin of 80 to 63; this was a smaller margin of victory than three same-sex marriage bills had attained in the Assembly in prior years. On the same day, Governor Cuomo issued a message of necessity to the Senate, allowing the bill to bypass the normal three-day aging process.

"While the Senate met, the Assembly voted on a set of amendments developed to win the support of Senators concerned about the Act's impact on religion-based opposition to same-sex marriage, which detailed exemptions for religious and benevolent organizations. The exemptions are tied to an inseverability clause, ensuring that if the religious exemptions were successfully challenged in court, then the entire legislation and thus legal same-sex marriage would be invalid. It passed with little debate on a vote of 36-26. The same-sex marriage bill passed later that evening by a vote of 33-29. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the act into law at 11:55 P.M. The Act took effect on July 24, 2011. Republican senators Mark Grisanti and Stephen Saland joined Sens. Alesi and McDonald as the only Republicans supporting the legislation, while Sen. Ruben Diaz cast the only Democratic vote against the bill.

"The Gotham Gazette reported that the Senate rules were changed by the Democratic conference to prevent Democrat Ruben Diaz, Sr., an opponent of same-sex marriage, from motioning to lay the bill aside for debate and that the rules were changed again during the vote to ensure it would conclude in time to be covered on the 11 pm EDT newscasts. Sen. Kevin Parker alleged that the doors to the Senate chamber were locked on the evening of June 24 to prevent senators from leaving the chamber when the bill was voted on." [3]

Of the four Republican state senators who voted in favor of the Marriage Equality Act, only one was re-elected to the State Senate in 2012. [3A] Not mentioned in the above blurb, is the fact that Mayor Bloomberg was present at the NYS Senate closed door sessions during his push for SSM which is indicative of a more political push than a deliberative process by New York's citizenry [4] and that the focus was on "economic" benefits to the state and not on the NYS Constitution or the definition of the word marriage being unjust [5].

And, no one can figure out how although on July 6, 2006 – The Court of Appeals, New York State's highest court, ruled 4 to 2 in Hernandez v. Robles, 855 NE2nd (NY 2006) " that the New York State Constitution does NOT require that same-sex marriage be recognized under state law" (see Legal Primer) and the majority opinion stated, "This Court is the final authority as to the meaning of the New York Constitution," and, "New York's statutory law clearly limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. The more serious question is whether that limitation is consistent with the New York Constitution," and it concluded it was and cited the SCOTUS Baker v. Nelson precedent.[6]. And then, on appeal, the widely cited same sex marriage recognition case Martinez, received the following ruling:

"The Appellate Division 4th Dept. explained that New York marriage-recognition law, dating back "for well over a century . . . recognized marriages solemnized outside New York unless they f[e]ll into two categories of exception: (1) marriage, the recognition of which is prohibited by the 'positive law' of New York and (2) marriages involving incest or polygamy, both of which fall within the prohibitions of 'natural law.'" Thus, New York followed the general rule of comity in marriage-recognition cases. The Appellate Division found that neither exception applied to this case." (See NY Law Review at [6A] p. 486).

They erred. Neither exception applies because the case of a same sex marriage is not recognized in NYS as a marriage at all according to the Hernandez ruling. "Furthermore, [the Appellate stated] the Hernandez ruling had observed that the legislature was free to change this result, which, according to the Appellate Division, meant that the Court of Appeals would hold that recognition of a same-sex marriage would not violate the public policy of the state."

IF the legislature changed the statute which had not happened at that date in time.

" . . .the first courts to confront the issue [same sex marriage] balked, citing Hernandez as establishing a state policy against recognizing same-sex marriages.

III. The Martinez Decision and its Judicial Aftermath. Despite these earlier trial court decisions, on February 1, 2008, in the first appellate ruling on the subject, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, found that nothing in Hernandez would preclude recognition of same-sex marriages, and that principles of comity, as developed by the New York courts in marriage-recognition cases [all citations presented cases between a man and a woman], compelled recognition of a marriage contracted in Canada by a same-sex couple residing in New York." [6A]

It wasn't the first Appellate ruling.

Then, in 2008, a challenge by Monroe County to recognize an out of state SSM (Canadian) was suddenly dropped after " on Feb. 1, 2008, the appeals court unanimously decided that Martinez's marriage to Ms. Golden is entitled to recognition under the marriage recognition rule." A decision based almost entirely on an amicus curiae brief sent to them by Andrew Cuomo (See [8]), then the NYS Attorney General. The case, briefly happened this way:

"State Supreme Court, Monroe County, Index No. 433-05 (direct)

This case concerns whether valid same-sex marriages performed outside the state are entitled to recognition in New York.

Patricia Martinez, an employee of Monroe Community College, married her partner, Lisa Ann Golden, in Canada in 2004. The college, which offers spousal health care benefits to employees in opposite-sex marriages, refused Martinez's request to provide Golden benefits.

On Jan. 13, 2005, the NYCLU filed a complaint on behalf of Ms. Martinez in the State Supreme Court of Monroe County. The suit alleged that Ms. Martinez and her partner are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

The lawsuit asked the county and college to recognize the couple's valid marriage under the state's "marriage recognition rule," the more than century-old law that requires New York State to recognize marriages performed outside the state.

The state trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. In response, the NYCLU appealed to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. The NYCLU asked the Fourth Department to vacate the lower Court's decision, grant the plaintiff declaratory relief and remand the case to the trial court for a hearing regarding monetary damages. The case was briefed in June 2007.

On Feb. 1, 2008, the appeals court unanimously decided that Martinez's marriage to Ms. Golden is entitled to recognition under the marriage recognition rule. The court based its ruling on the fact that New York does not have a law prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages and that recognizing such marriages would not violate public policy. The appeals court also ruled that by failing to recognize the marriage, the college and county violated state Human Rights Law by discriminating against the couple based on their sexual orientation. [7]

It appears the court took Cuomo's word and never checked recent NYS court rulings.

Oddly enough, regardless of the NYS Court of Appeals ruling in Hernandez in 2006 that the New York State Constitution does NOT require that same-sex marriage be recognized under state law, in 2007 Andrew Cuomo, then NYS Attorney General, decided ipse dixit in his Amicus Curiae to the Martinez appeals court stating that the "NYS Supreme Court incorrectly concluded that recognizing a same sex partnership as a marriage would be contrary to New York public policy and would constitute "an end-run around . . . the will of the New York State Legislature, which currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman" (A. 253). [8]

The New York State Supreme court incorrectly concluded in the Martinez case? The Hernandez Court of Appeals incorrectly concluded in 2006? And, Cuomo mentions in his Amicus, Alan Hevesi – whose letter contains a reference to a case named Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital, which on appeal, agreed with the two previous courts' conclusions about the definition of Marriage in the NYS Constitution.

The Langan v. St. Vincent Hospital ruling by the Appellate Division 2nd Department incorrectly concluded as well or so Mr. Cuomo would have us believe. Each court previously stated that Marriage in New York is defined as being only between one man and one woman – that conclusion, according to Andrew Cuomo was incorrect?

"Under New York practice, a ruling by a panel of the Appellate Division in any department becomes a precedent binding on all trial courts of the state unless or until another panel of the Appellate Division contradicts it. Therefore, the Martinez ruling immediately established a statewide precedent for the recognition of same-sex marriages contracted in other jurisdictions." [6A]

It appears that the Appellate Division 4th Department's precedent disagreed with the Appellate Division 2nd Department's precedent, which should've bound all court decisions, but didn't. There seems cause for judicial review. The Appellate Division 4th Department was also in disagreement with the SCOTUS binding precedent of Baker v. Nelson.

Hernandez defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, the opposite sex, as binary, so no human relationship not meeting that definition, whether performed in the U.S. or in another country or jurisdiction can be considered for recognition in New York as a "marriage" because it does not exist as an entity defined by NYS domestic and constitutional law as constituting a "marriage" in the state of New York; so applying limitations to it regarding whether it's abhorrent, incestuous, polygamous or even possible to recognize an entity relationship non-existent in New York Domestic Relations law and the definition of what constitutes Marriage according to the laws of New York State, do not apply since it is a non-sequitur. His argument draws on those exact conclusions that do not follow from its premises. So Cuomo erred and so did the Appellate Division 4th dept. in basing their decision on Cuomo's errors in logic.

Cuomo continues in his brief by stating: "In addition, the Attorney General [himself] currently is litigating the question presented in this appeal on behalf of two state entities. The Department of Civil Service and the Office of the State Comptroller recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions, and their authority to do so is being challenged in pending lawsuits. This Court's resolution of the instant lawsuit could well have implications for the outcome of those cases." [8] One of which appears to be Funderburke (March 2008) on which Cuomo was Attorney General, and directly affected by the Martinez ruling.

Amazingly enough, that appeals court decided unanimously in favor of Cuomo's request – and follows the reasoning in his Amicus brief almost verbatim. Cuomo mentions the NYS Comptroller, Alan Hevesi, in his Amicus Curiae. Alan Hevesi's office communicated a letter in October 2004 in response to a question about NYS retirement "pension" benefits and recognition for a same sex marriage performed in Canada and cited a case Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital – a wrongful death case seeking marriage or spousal recognition for a same sex civil union performed in Vermont – and SSM spousal recognition as the basis for Hevesi's opinion which states " . . . based on the state of the law as it exists today . . .we will be bound by any judicial or legislatives pronouncements." [9]. That case was reversed (but Hevesi was not bound?) on October 11, 2005, at the Appellate Division, 2nd Department, which set a state precedent, with a reliance on SCOTUS precedent of Baker v. Nelson:

"In the absence of any prior precedent, the court would have to analyze whether the statute imposes a broad and undifferentiated disadvantage to a particular group and if such result is motivated by an animus to that group (see Romer v Evans, supra). However, in this instance, it has already been established that confining marriage and all laws pertaining either directly or indirectly to the marital relationship to different sex couples is not offensive to the Equal Protection Clause of either the federal or state constitutions. In Baker v Nelson (291 Minn 310, 191 NW2d 185 [1971]), the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the denial of marital status to same-sex couples did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court refused to review that result (see Baker v Nelson, 409 US 810 [1972]). The plaintiff herein cannot meet his burden of proving the statute unconstitutional and does not refer this Court to any binding or even persuasive authority that diminishes the import of the Baker precedent."

"On the contrary, issues concerning the rights of same-sex couples have been before the United States Supreme Court on numerous occasions since Baker and, to date, no justice of that Court has ever indicated that the holding in Baker is suspect. Although in Lawrence v Texas (539 US 558 [2003]) the Supreme Court ruled that laws criminalizing activity engaged in by same-sex couples and potentially adversely affecting their liberty interests could not withstand constitutional scrutiny, every justice of that Court expressed an indication that exclusion of marital rights to same-sex couples did promote a legitimate state interest. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist concluded that disapprobation of homosexual conduct is a sufficient basis for virtually any law based on classification of such conduct. The majority opinion of Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer declined to apply an equal protection analysis and nonetheless expressly noted that the holding (based on the penumbra of privacy derived from Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479 [1965]) did not involve or require the government to give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexuals{**25 AD3d at 94} wish to enter (see Lawrence v Texas, supra at 578). Justice O'Connor, in her concurring opinion based on an equal protection analysis, specifically excluded marriage from the import of her conclusions, stating simply "other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group" (Lawrence v Texas, supra at 585).

"Similarly, this Court, in ruling on the very same issue in Matter of Cooper (187 AD2d 128 [1993], appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 801 [1993]) not only held that the term "surviving spouse" did not include same-sex life partners, but expressly stated as follows: "Based on these authorities [including Baker, supra], we agree with Acting Surrogate Paused's conclusion that 'purported [homosexual] marriages do not give rise to any rights . . . pursuant to . . . EPTL 5-1.1 [and that] [n]o constitutional rights have been abrogated or violated in so holding' " (Matter of Cooper, id. at 134-135 [emphasis added]). Although issues involving same-sex spouses have been presented in various contexts since the perfection of this appeal, no court decision has been issued which undermines our obligation to follow our own precedents. Recently, in the somewhat analogous case of Matter of Valentine v American Airlines (17 AD3d 38 [2005]), the Appellate Division, Third Department, in denying spousal status to same-sex couples for purposes of workers' compensation claims, cited both Baker and Cooper with approval. Thus, no cogent reason to depart from the established judicial precedent of both the courts of the United States and the courts of the State of New York has been demonstrated by the plaintiff or our dissenting colleagues. [*4]

"The fact that since the perfection of this appeal the State of Massachusetts has judicially created such right for its citizens is of no moment here since the plaintiff and the decedent were not married in that jurisdiction. They opted for the most intimate sanctification of their relationship then permitted, to wit, a civil union pursuant to the laws of the State of Vermont. Although the dissenters equate civil union relationships with traditional heterosexual marriage, we note that neither the State of Vermont nor the parties to the subject relationship have made that jump in logic. In following the ruling of its Supreme Court in the case of Baker v State (170 Vt 194, 744 A2d 864 [1999]) the Vermont Legislature went to great pains to expressly decline to place civil unions and marriage on an identical basis. While affording same-sex couples the same rights as those afforded married couples, the Vermont Legislature refused to alter{**25 AD3d at 95}traditional concepts of marriage (i.e., limiting the ability to marry to couples of two distinct sexes) (see Vt Stat Ann, tit 15, §§ 8, 1201 [4]). The import of that action is of no small moment. The decedent herein, upon entering the defendant hospital, failed to indicate that he was married. Moreover, in filing the various probate papers in this action, the plaintiff likewise declined to state that he was married. In essence, this Court is being asked to create a relationship never intended by the State of Vermont in creating civil unions or by the decedent or the plaintiff in entering into their civil union. For the same reason, the theories of full faith and credit and comity have no application to the present fact pattern.

"The circumstances of the present case highlight the reality that there is a substantial segment of the population of this state that is desirous of achieving state recognition and regulation of their relationships on an equal footing with married couples. There is also a substantial segment of the population of this state that wishes to preserve traditional concepts of marriage as a unique institution confined solely to one man and one woman. Whether these two positions are not so hopelessly at variance (to all but the extremists in each camp) to prevent some type of redress is an issue not for the courts but for the Legislature. Unlike the court, which can only rule on the issues before it, the Legislature is empowered to act on all facets of the issue including, but not limited to, the issues of the solemnization and creation of such relationships, the dissolution of such relationships and the consequences attendant thereto, and all other rights and liabilities that flow from such a relationship. Any contrary decision, no matter how circumscribed, will be taken as judicial imprimatur of same-sex marriages and would constitute a usurpation of powers expressly reserved by our Constitution to the Legislature. Accordingly, the order must be reversed insofar as appealed from." [10].

So, Hevesi's reliance on a decision in a lower court case that was voided by a precedent set by the Appellate Division 2nd Department, a superior court ruling in 2005 in Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital, which confirmed the NYS Court of Appeals in Hernandez in July 2006. Cuomo must've known about these cases when he wrote his Amicus Curiae in 2007; that decision bound Hevisi as well, but there's only silence.

Eliot Spitzer with Caitlin J. Halligan wrote an Amicus Curiae in favor of that SSM spousal claim in Langan (See Footnote 3 in Langan at [10]). It should be noted that Spitzer later became Governor of NYS and resigned in disgrace for engaging prostitutes [11] and "Mr. Hevesi, 72, has been incarcerated since April 2011, when he was sentenced to one to four years for his role in a sprawling scandal involving the state's $153 billion pension fund, which he oversaw as sole trustee. Mr. Hevesi, a Democrat, has been held at a medium-security prison in Marcy, N.Y." His demise was spearheaded by an investigation by Andrew Cuomo. [12]. (It should also be noted that NYS Legislators Dean Skelos and Sheldon Silver are also under indictment. To which law do we turn when criminals have enacted laws against the will of the people who elected them? Shouldn't those laws become null and void? It should be also noted that many indictments of NYS legislators by Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, are a result of the Moreland Commission findings which Cuomo initiated and afterward decided to shut down and not proceed on the findings until Bharara demanded the files.)

Even though, on March 8, 2004 the previous "Attorney General Eliot Spitzer of New York, viewed [then] as a likely candidate for governor, said that the law is clear and that same-sex marriages would violate it. But he added that his heart is with those on the other side." [13]

The law is clear? So how did the interpretation of that law become so muddied?

Ah, and the plot thickens.

After that Appellate 4th Dept. Feb. 1st ruling, on May 29, 2008, "Gov. David A. Paterson [has] directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada." 'Basically we've done everything we can do on marriage legislatively at this point," said Sean Patrick Maloney [a carpetbagger Congressman for Putnam County, New York], a senior adviser to Mr. Paterson. "But there are tools in our tool kit on the executive side, and this is one.'

"The directive cited a Feb. 1 [2008] ruling by a State Appellate Court in Rochester that Patricia Martinez, who works at Monroe Community College and who married her partner in Canada, could not be denied health benefits by the college because of New York's longstanding policy of recognizing marriages performed elsewhere, even if they are not explicitly allowed under New York law. The appeals court said that New York must recognize marriages performed in other states that allow the practice and in countries that permit it, like Canada and Spain."

"Monroe County filed an appeal with the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, but it was rejected on technical grounds. The county has not decided whether to file another appeal, a county spokesman said on Wednesday. The Court of Appeals has previously ruled that the state's Constitution did not compel the recognition of same-sex marriages and that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether do so." [14]

The State Appellate Court is a lower court to the NYS Court of Appeals, NYS's highest court, so how do they overrule the NYS Court of Appeals' decision on the same issue [14A-1]?

And, how does Gov. Patterson claim the right to proclaim an executive order has the force of law when it is in direct opposition to the Court of Appeals' ruling the unconstitutionality of same sex marriages according to the NYS Constitution and NYS Domestic Law, according to the U.S. Constitution and according to the SCOTUS precedent in Baker v. Nelson that the definition of marriage is limited between persons of the opposite sex – one man and one woman?

The New York State Law Review (See [6A], p. 488) says, "Trial courts in other parts of the state, with one minor exception, accepted Martinez as a binding precedent and soon applied it in other cases involving couples who had married in Canada or Massachusetts."

So Martinez is accepted as a binding precedent but Langan v. St. Vincent, Hernandez and Baker v. Nelson, a SCOTUS precedent, are not binding and did not bind this court?

[ It is very interesting that the SCOTUS did not even address the Federal circuit courts blatantly overriding their precedent in Baker v. Nelson in their Obergefell decision. Why not? Inconvenient or incompetent or purely political? They are making a historical record that is quite damning.]

Cuomo argued they did not because those rulings dealt with marriages in New York that couldn't be performed legally because of New York law; Langan was about a Vermont civil union. His argument had to do with Marriage recognition laws of New York. He said that typically marriages performed in other jurisdictions that would not be legally able to be performed under New York laws, were recognized traditionally by New York and he then gave a bunch of examples about incestuous marriages and the like – all between one man and one woman, uncles and cousins and the like, which is the definition of a marriage in New York State. Cuomo's argument uses sophistry in its purest form. New York cannot recognize a partnership legally created in another state that does not exist as an entity in the New York State Constitution, Domestic Relations law or in any statute. Had two brothers claimed a common law marriage simply by virtue of having cohabitated for years and maybe even having adopted a child – would they only be denied marital rights because of incest? Incest would not apply because incest is related to procreation between relatives of the opposite sex not between relatives of the same sex. Discrimination? Or, because their partnership is not an identifiable entity in New York State law? The mere use of the term – marriage – does not suddenly make a non-existing entity exist in a definition that limits those to whom it refers; to say otherwise intentionally would be negligent and it would create a tort making Cuomo the tortfeasor.

New York's law is clear unless one dispenses with the definition of "positive" and "natural" law:

For well over a century, New York has recognized marriages solemnized outside of New York unless they fall into two categories of exception: (1) marriage, the recognition of which is prohibited by the "positive law" of New York and (2) marriages involving incest or polygamy, both of which fall within the prohibitions of "natural law" (Matter of May, 305 NY 486, 491; see Moore v Hegeman, 92 NY 521, 524; Thorp v Thorp, 90 NY 602, 605; see generally Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18, 24-26).

In a directive released by David Nocenti (Counsel to the Governor, Patterson) in May 2008, he states that the Funderburke decision rendered lower court's non-recognition as moot citing Martinez. Well, that's not quite true. The reason the lower court's non-recognition ruling was rendered moot [14A] was because the reason for the appeal no longer existed since the parties complained against had changed their policies due to directives from state officials [Hevesi].

"During the pendency of the appeal, the DCS changed its policy regarding recognition of foreign same-sex marriages. The DCS now requires public employers within its jurisdiction to provide full spousal benefits to same-sex couples validly married in another jurisdiction, and requires all members of its health insurance program, including the District, to provide such benefits. The DCS further committed to the payment of out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff in obtaining health coverage for his spouse from the time of the plaintiff's application for spousal health coverage. On May 3, 2007 the District notified the plaintiff that his spouse would be eligible to enroll in the Empire Plan, which is one of the medical and health insurance plans made available to employees of the State and its subdivisions. The District further changed its eligibility policy for its dental plan pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Education of the District, notified the plaintiff of the change, and committed to reimburse him the maximum amount of dental coverage which would have been available to his spouse had he been enrolled in the program since the time that the initial coverage request was made." [14B]

Finally, the NYS Marriage Equality Act's severability clause. According to Cornell Law Review:

Applying the plain meaning of an inseverability clause fails in several respects. The plain meaning approach neglects to account for the insuperable practical difficulties discussed in Part III.C-that the text of even an artfully drafted inseverability clause will inevitably leave unresolved. It also fails to afford proper solicitude to the constitutional prerogatives of the judiciary by affording no remedy for coercive inseverability clauses. Insofar as public choice theorists would like to view the legislative process as a contractual arrangement between competing interest groups, they fail to grasp the full implications of the analogy. In the case of the Marriage Equality Act, the competing interests at work in the New York legislature did reach a bargain they found agreeable, but by inserting the inseverability clause, they externalized the political costs of their potentially unconstitutional compact, conscripting the judiciary as an unwilling partner. In doing so, the legislature impermissibly encroached upon a coequal branch.

Other than the legislative intent section of the session law1'2 and statements made by some senators as they were casting their votes, there is little publicly available information on the details of the negotiating process. The legislative intent section of the final session law includes the following language:

Marriage is a fundamental human right. Same-sex couples should have the same access as others to the protections, responsibilities, rights, obligations, and benefits of civil marriage. Stable family relationships help build a stronger society. For the welfare of the community and in fairness to all New Yorkers, this act formally recognizes otherwise-valid marriages without regard to whether the parties are of the same or different sex.

How could a court begin to reconcile this language with the clear meaning of the inseverability clause? If marriage-including same-sex marriage-is a "fundamental human right," then how can it be the intent of the legislature to repeal it upon invalidation of even a minor provision of the bill? [14C]

Obviously, the answer is that same sex marriage is not a fundamental human right. It cannot be for our inalienable rights come from natural, universal law defined as being endowed by our Creator – God, as announced in The Declaration of Independence. The European Court of Human Rights agreed in August 2014:.

"The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights does not require nations to recognize same-sex marriage.

The case arises from a Finnish law that restricts marriage to one man and one woman. When a married man had sexual reassignment surgery to become female, Finland declined his attempt to change his legal status to female as a violation of their national domestic relations law on the definition of marriage. On appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, the marriage law of Finland was under review. The Court held by a 14-3 vote that under the European Convention on Human Rights, no country is required to recognize same-sex marriage, affirming an earlier similar decision." [14D]

So, in Windsor, SCOTUS, in holding that DOMA, Section 3's definition that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman is discriminatory, would fail in an international tribunal because it is not discriminatory to exclude anyone who cannot meet the definition of an objective word. And, Windsor fails also because NYS unconstitutionally legalized same sex marriage by disregarding all court precedents – which the justices on the United States Supreme Court never reviewed before basing their decision on subversive acts against both the NYS Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

" In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition."

In a dissenting opinion at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Niemeyer wrote, p. 84: "At bottom, the fundamental right to marriage does not include a right to same-sex marriage. Under the Glucksberg analysis that we are thus bound to conduct, there is no new fundamental right to same-sex marriage. Virginia's laws restricting marriage to man-woman relationships must therefore be upheld if there is any rational basis for the laws."[14 E]

The question remains. What is the rational basis for any of our laws? If the definitions of "positive law" and "natural law" and "marriage" have no inherent meaning, then neither does reason.

As far as a New York state-wide deliberative process among citizens goes, I remember prior to this "vote," the NYS anti-bullying law – Dignity for All Act 2010 [15], which took effect July 2012 – was passed and the community groups tapped to ensure compliance included CAIR and mostly LGBT groups. The passage of that law effectively silenced any student or parent or citizen debate on the teaching of homosexual sexual conduct in public school classrooms by calling anyone objecting bullies and bigots and discriminatory. Middle School and High School Health classes focused on homosexual discrimination but had no focus on detrimental health outcomes related to homosexual sexual practices or sexually transmitted diseases therefore, while encouraging children so disposed to embrace the homosexual lifestyle, was criminally negligent in addressing any health related issues or warnings. Any parent expressing concern about the negligence in addressing LGBT sexual health issues was dismissed by public school administrators as homophobic and bigoted.

So to say there were open public deliberations by the citizens of New York throughout the state on same sex marriage, in specific, or homosexuality, in general, is a lie. The citizenry of New York was being silenced on the issue and children's sexual health suddenly became a "secret" only to be discussed with a doctor during "the talk" after a mandatory school physical excluding the parent – the only person or people who actually have all the prior knowledge medically, physically, emotionally and concretely regarding the child were now not a party to the child's overall medical sexual health and virtually demonized by complete strangers in the schools and in the medical community who took on the role of defender of the child they hardly knew against the parents of every child! (During the mandatory "talk," twelve and thirteen year old girls are informed by the pediatrician that they can come to the doctor if they want contraceptives or an abortion and their parent needs never be told. The doctor never discusses sexually transmitted diseases; never discusses the dangers from surgical abortion; never discusses FDA warnings about deaths related to medical abortions; and never discusses AIDS, HIV or any other dangers from heterosexual or homosexual sexual promiscuity.)

I also remember, that prior to the Dignity Act's implementation, National School Climate Surveys administered by GLSEN [16] – founded by Kevin Jennings who, I believe, became an Education Dept. Czar appointed by President Obama – to other LGBT organizations which did not adhere to any objective parameters used to conduct proper and verifiable results, was used as a method to create the emergency perception that, first of all, there were a ton of persecuted and bullied gay children in schools across the country that needed protection – which was false since the survey was only given to "secret" organizations and filled out by "secret" sources and prior to this "invented" emergency, there was never any hint that LGBT students were bullied more or less than chubby kids, short kids, quiet kids or any other kids targeted by a bully and that school administrators were hopeless in helping any bullying victim and had instead implemented the STAR/RAK – Random Act of Kindness Program – to elevate the bully as the victim – and secondly, to open the door for homosexual propaganda to enter the schools from Dan Savage's the " It Gets Better Project" and Jenning's GLSEN's Safe Schools and the Human Rights Campaign whose founder, Terry Bean, by the way, is under indictment in Oregon for raping a fourteen year old boy with his boyfriend. (The "boy" has now disappeared and so Bean's trial is now in question [16A]. Of course, the boy disappeared after the court rejected Bean's attempt to settle the criminal case by paying the boy money. [16B]. (Money can be offered to settle a criminal case in the United States?) The judge rejected that proposal. Bean is a huge Obama bundler; friend of Democratic powerhouses; and porn producer. [16C]. To find out further about this case, people will have to google it as the main stream media is not following it at all.)

The Dignity Act and other state "school bullying laws" were enacted based on unvetted data from surveys filled with the phony statistics from the questionable surveys. It is the same sensationalistic news that led our "lawmakers" to enact strict laws regarding so – called rape on college campuses – the fabricated Rolling Stone UVA rape article, the Columbia University "Mattress Girl" story, the phony rape charge at Duke – when laws are enacted based on lies, they are not laws, but tyrannical and illegal statutes deeming the accused guilty without benefit of any defense.

That GLSEN survey was also footnoted twice (at 2 and 3) in a letter to all school superintendents from Arne Duncan in 2011. [17]

It became apparently clear to all parents, that the focus on bullying was meant only for a certain type of student and not to aide all students being persecuted by a school bully. The "team" called by the White House to implement strategies against bullying in 2011 were mainly homosexual men [18]. This revelation came right on the heels of the John Jay Report indicating that homosexual priests preyed on homosexual teenage boys. How is it possible that homosexual men were now being selected to spearhead an anti-bullying campaign and to lead on directing the sexual nature of courses and classes directed at young teenage homosexuals? Isn't this called "grooming?"

As a matter of fact, this "bullying" focus created more bullying by some students' falsely accusing other innocent kids of using words that suddenly became an insult like the word "normal" or "she" and "he" instead of "zhe" and "zha" and the use of the terms "boy" and "girl" became discriminatory as well. Students were given books to read like: The House You Meet Along The Way, which was about two cousins having a lesbian sexual encounter. Is that incest? Only five justices on the Supreme Court can apparently answer that question. Complaining parents were called homophobic by Teachers and Administrators and as retribution, their children's grades suffered.

At about the same time in 2011, NYC instituted a mandatory sex ed program that was questionable. Dr. Miriam Grossman, a medical doctor and psychiatrist reviewed it and pointed out faulty information [19]. NYC parents were upset over this "bawdy" sex ed program [20]. That sex ed program was largely derived from the UNESCO International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education 2009 publication [21] compiled by, as noted in the acknowledgement page: " Douglas Kirby, Senior Scientist at ETR (Education, Training, Research) Associates and Nanette Ecker, former Director of International Education and Training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), listed as the contributing authors of this document. Douglas Kirby is a sociologist associated with the Kinsey Institute (Alfred Kinsey, an entomologist (he studied insects), and, of course, was able to transfer his knowledge of insect breeding to human sexuality and became the famed researcher who catalogued infant orgasms from his pedophile researcher code named "Mr. Green" and has had all of his research proven fraudulent [22]). Kirby was not a pediatrician, gynecologist, psychiatrist or medical doctor. He is a "senior scientist" at ETR Associates, an independent research organization previously part of Planned Parenthood's in house research institute – the Guttmacher Institute; and "Nanette Ecker, a sex educator from the Nassau County (Long Island) chapter of Planned Parenthood," [23] , and not a medical doctor either.

Why was Planned Parenthood, the largest in-house abortion provider in the country, since we've all learned from the Kermit Gosnell trial [24] that most, if not all, abortions happen in Planned Parenthood "clinics" and not in hospitals, chosen to teach children "sex education" when their priority is selling their product – abortion – through propaganda disguised as science and their curricula to children focuses on the sexualization of little children with a priority of teaching masturbation to 5 year olds? [25] As of the last edit of this article, the Center for Media Progress released nine videos showing in horrific detail how Planned Parenthood savage disregard for human life as doctors discuss dissecting intact babies to sell their body parts for profit while they laugh and eat their lunch.

Extensively covered in the news at that time also, was the story of an 18 year old gay, young man named Tyler Clementi, a Rutgers college student in New Jersey who committed suicide directly following the second visit to his dorm room from a 30 year old adult male homosexual that the student himself contacted and invited into his dormitory room which he shared with a fellow freshman. Although parents of college-aged students and college students themselves were aghast at the security breach of having this unvetted adult stranger allowed on the campus and allowed to freely roam at night into the co-ed dorms – the bedrooms – of 17 and 18 year old college freshmen away at college for only two to three weeks, as these incidents happened the nights of Sunday September 19th at 9 p.m. and Tuesday the 21st at 9 p.m., 2010, and Clementi committed suicide on September 22, 2010 by taking public transportation to and jumping off the George Washington Bridge, that stranger's identity and the possible association the student's suicide had immediately following the tryst with this man , was never addressed in the media or in court. Instead, the 18 year old dormitory roommate was blamed, indicted and tried and convicted because he talked about the roommate having a strange homosexual man in the dorm bedroom he shared with Tyler Clementi which housed all his own belongings and that any college freshman would wonder about such a stranger as a guest was a safety and security concern dismissed as having no basis in reality and Ravi's behavior could only be explained as homophobic.

Every parent of every student boarding in that college should have sued Rutgers for putting their child's safety at risk! No one in the mass media thought to ask the question about a security risk in college campus bedrooms? Why not? Was it because the man was a homosexual and asking questions regarding security breaches and expressing concerns about negligence of security and the safety of college students in their bedrooms on campus was what the college was actively trying to hide to protect itself from lawsuits? The college used the term sexual orientation discrimination to silence questions from both students and parents regarding the college's actual negligence

(In every college's mandatory sex safety videos made for students to watch about rape or sex crimes on campus, nothing addresses homosexual sex; everything has to do with the dangers of heterosexual sex. It is strange indeed that all our young college scholars never think to question that huge gap in logic since all they hear on college campuses is LGBT rights – where is the right of LGBTs to be warned about the dangers involved in their sex acts as described by the WHO and the CDC? It is discrimination against all LGBT people to hide sexually transmitted diseases from them and from their partners and expose them to serious health risks from negligent health videos excluding them.)

Although Mr. Clementi's mother lamented that her son ". . . a few days before leaving home to attend college at Rutgers, Clementi told his parents that he was gay. While his father supported him, Clementi said in an instant message to a friend that his mother had "basically completely rejected" him."

The media and GLSEN led the public to believe that a rejection by the student's mother of his "gay" identity had less of an impact than fellow college students whom he barely knew over the course of three weeks, gossiping about his sexual exploits with a 30 year old man that he chose to publicly invite onto the college campus and into his dormitory bedroom. The media expected the public to believe that no student or security guards would've noticed the strange male adult roaming the halls of the dorm at night, that no one would question the presence of such stranger or wonder what he was doing going into a student's bedroom except that the roommate was asked to vacate the room for the night, or talk about it to his friends unless he were homophobic?

According to GLSEN: "Shortly after Clementi's suicide, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network stated, "There has been heightened media attention surrounding the suicides in New Jersey, Texas, California, Indiana, and Minnesota." The same month Clementi died, four other American teenagers were reported to have committed suicide after being taunted about their homosexuality, although the brother of one of the deceased said he did not believe the suicide was brought on by bullying." The public was led to believe that the roommate was to blame for Clementi's suicide because he turned on the webcam in his own dorm room for ten seconds. Even though "Clementi left a suicide note which, along with documents on his computer, was never released to either the public or to the defense team in Ravi's trial, because Clementi's suicide was not directly related to the charges against Ravi." [26]

"It became widely understood that a closeted student at Rutgers had committed suicide after video of him having sex with a man was secretly shot and posted online. In fact, there was no posting, no observed sex, and no closet. But last spring, shortly before Molly Wei made a deal with prosecutors, Ravi was indicted on charges of invasion of privacy (sex crimes), bias intimidation (hate crimes), witness tampering, and evidence tampering. Bias intimidation is a sentence-booster that attaches itself to an underlying crime – usually, a violent one. Here the allegation, linked to snooping, is either that Ravi intended to harass Clementi because he was gay or that Clementi felt he'd been harassed for being gay. Ravi is not charged in connection with Clementi's death, but he faces a possible sentence of ten years in jail."

"Clementi's story also became linked to the It Gets Better project [Dan Savage] – an online collection of video monologues expressing solidarity with unhappy or harassed gay teens. The site was launched the day before Clementi's death, in response to the suicide, two weeks earlier, of Billy Lucas, a fifteen-year-old from Indiana who, for years, had been called a "fag" and told vicious things, including "You don't deserve to live." That October, President Barack Obama taped an It Gets Better message, referring to "several young people who were bullied and taunted for being gay, and who ultimately took their own lives." [26]

Suicide? Throughout my life-time being bullied typically led to parental complaints to the teachers and school administrators, or to the bullying victim ultimately punching the bully in the face, not punching himself or killing himself. Where is all the research indicating that any other person, besides one with homosexual tendencies, ever committed suicide because he/she was bullied? If there's no comparative analysis, then this conclusion is not based on scientific evidence that it is bullying that leads homosexuals to suicide but something else that is the underlying cause. Such research does exist from the Dutch Study on Same Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders (NEMESIS) 2001 [26A]. And, from the Association of American Medical Colleges, it is a well-known fact that child sexual molestation is associated with homosexual sexuality and that suicide has an extremely high outcome in that population [26B].

Most people agreed with the comments of a friend of Ravi's family: "The judicial system had taken things too far, he said. Ravi's family had struggled to live a normal life since the arrest, and Ravi – who is again living with his parents – had barely been able to leave the house. "He's been incarcerated – he's an exile," Kappa said. "Our minds are frozen right now."

Although every word said and written by Ravi was recorded in the media, the racist comments toward Ravi from Clemente went unnoticed: "Clementi's I.M. records offer a peculiarly intimate view of his first few hours with Ravi, after both sets of parents had left. As Ravi unpacked, Clementi was chatting with Yang. "I'm reading his twitter page and umm he's sitting right next to me," he wrote. "I still don't know how to say his name." Yang replied, "Fail!!!!! that's hilarious." Clementi told Yang that Ravi's parents had seemed "sooo Indian first gen americanish," adding that they "defs owna dunkin" – a Dunkin' Donuts. Clementi and Ravi seem to have responded in similarly exaggerated ways to perceived hints of modest roots in the other."

Or Clementi's having no problem making fun of the fact that Ravi could be uncomfortable living in a room with a roommate sexually attracted to what he himself was – a boy, a young man: "There were windows at the end of the room, and along each side wall there was a bed, a desk, a dresser, and a free-standing closet. Clementi told Yang that Ravi had moved his closet to form a semi-private changing space; Clementi called it a "cubby." (He later called the sight of Ravi changing "the most awk thing you've ever seen.") Thanks to Twitter, Clementi knew that Ravi had seen his Justusboys postings . . ."

Although Clementi was described as "shy," in the media " . . . Though he may have been slow to develop sexually, by the time he reached Rutgers he had found a streak of boldness. This perhaps left him exposed: once he overcame his shyness, he was not shy at all. His sexual self – born on the Internet, in the shadow of pornography – seems to have been largely divorced from his social self. After Clementi died, Gawker found what appeared to be an account that he had opened at Cam4, a site where women and men put on sexual displays, by webcam. Clementi also used a hookup Web site called Adam4adam. On September 2nd, Cruz told him, "U need to get away from the computer . . . specially adam. . . "

"Two weeks later, Clementi described to Cruz a recent liaison – "SOOO good" – with a man who visited him in Davidson Hall on September 16th, after the two of them had first considered renting a motel room. This was M.B., who will lose his anonymity if he gives evidence at Ravi's trial. According to Clementi, M.B. was twenty-five, working two jobs, not out, and nervous about coming to the dorm. (Rooms could be reached only by walking through the student lounge.) Clementi, who said that he had texted Ravi to request use of the room, joked that it "would be so awk" if Ravi walked in "while I'm getting fucked," adding, "At the same time i think I would just be like 'screw it.' "

" . . . Upon leaving Room 30, Ravi apparently first made a quick visit to her room, across the hall. Wei said that he was agitated, asking, "Why does he want the room all to himself?" He then returned to his room, and was getting organized for his evening's exile when Clementi retrieved M.B. at the dormitory entrance and brought him to the room. Ravi said of his brief encounter with M.B., "He didn't acknowledge me at all. He just sat on the bed, on Tyler's bed."

"Ravi returned to Wei's room. She recalled him saying, "It's a really old-looking guy, like, What the heck, what's going on?" Ravi thought that M.B. seemed "really shady." She went on, "He actually was kind of angry. He's, like, 'If he steals my iPad I'm going to make Tyler pay for it.' And he's, like, 'Oh, and my roommate's gay, like what if something else is going on?' " Speaking to the police, Ravi recalled M.B. as "slightly overweight," with facial hair of some sort. Ravi's reaction appears to have included some class prejudice: the man, apparently working-class, was a likely thief. He was "random," as one of Molly Wei's friends later put it – he was troublingly not of their world." As far as Clementi's being shy goes, "If Ravi was as disoriented as Wei claims, one can perhaps see why: Clementi was hesitant to talk about curtains, but in a busy dorm, after less than a month of cohabitation, he had kicked out his roommate so that he could have a sexual encounter with an older man who made no pretense of being his boyfriend."[26]

After extensively complaining about Ravi and discussing his own situation, " At quarter to five[a.m.], he [Clementi]asked for advice on Yahoo Answers. Someone identified as Jennifer replied, "Report him. What he is doing is completely inappropriate." She added, "I'm not trying to be mean but if you don't have the guts to take control of the situation it is not going to get better." So, what Ravi did was completely inappropriate but Clementi's inviting an adult stranger with no security clearance into a dormitory bedroom to have sex and requesting his dorm mate, who is also paying to live on campus in that bedroom and who is also entitled to privacy in his own dorm bedroom, to vacate the room is appropriate?

"On Tuesday, September 21st, Clementi invited M.B. back to his dorm room. In the late afternoon, he texted Ravi: "Could I have the room again like 9:30 till midnight?" Ravi replied, "Yeah no problem," and then sent a text to Molly Wei: "He wants the room again." She replied, "?!?WTF." " . . . M.B. arrived at 10:19 P.M. Clementi did not tell him about what had happened on Sunday. Ravi came back to the dorm, and waited in Agarwal's room. Just after eleven, he texted Clementi to ask if he was still using the room. At eleven-forty-eight, Clementi replied, "we're done."

After writing a suicide note at his dorm desk which police officers found in his backpack there, "Mainardi told me what he knew of the next hours. Clementi went to the campus food court, bought a burger, and, at about six-thirty, took the university shuttle bus to the rail station, where he took a train to New York, then a subway uptown. He headed toward the George Washington Bridge."

"He was carrying his phone, and he installed the Facebook app – this action was reportedly documented on his news feed. At eight-forty-two, he posted a status update: "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry." Mainardi was told that there were no witnesses; people saw Clementi on the south path and then saw that he wasn't there. The fall, from the center of the bridge, is about two hundred feet. His phone and wallet were found on the bridge." [27]

"Ravi's attorneys said they want to speak to M.B. as they prepare their client's defense.

"There is no question he has relevant information. But they have not provided his name, address or date of birth," Ravi's attorneys said in their motion. "There is no basis in the law for withholding this information." [28]

"Superior Court Judge Glenn Berman said Dharun Ravi, 19, and his attorney have the right to know the mystery man's name and date of birth. Ravi is scheduled to go on trial for allegedly using a webcam to watch Clementi and M.B. in an intimate encounter in his dorm room." [29]

"M.B., who is about 30, was with Clementi in the college freshman's dorm room the night of Sept. 19, 2010 when Ravi used his webcam to peek for a few seconds at the two men kissing. Ravi allegedly prepared to spy on them again during a subsequent date on Sept. 21 and invited others to watch, the prosecution claims." Claims which were, apparently, not true.

"During the prosecution's questioning, which last an hour, M.B. described how the pair met on the gay dating website Adam4Adam and chatted online throughout August. When Clementi moved into his Rutgers dorm room, they decided to meet.

"The pair had three dates from Sept. 16 to Sept. 21, and planned to continue seeing each other, M.B. testified. They kept in touch through text messages and email and planned to see one another again, though M.B. said he had reservations about whether he wanted to visit the dorm room again." [30]

"In March, a jury convicted Mr. Ravi of all 15 criminal counts with which he had been charged, including invasion of privacy and bias intimidation. On two of the intimidation counts, he faced up to 10 years in state prison.

"Last week, a judge sentenced him to 30 days in jail, beginning on Thursday. Prosecutors said they would appeal the sentence as being too lenient." [31]

"The judge had to defend his sentence, "No matter how "unconscionable" Mr. Ravi's conduct, Judge Glenn Berman said in a court hearing, "I can't find it in me to remand him to state prison that houses people convicted of offenses such as murder, armed robbery and rape."

"I don't believe that that fits this case," he continued. "I believe that he has to be punished, and he will be."

"Mr. Ravi was convicted in March of all 15 charges against him. Last week, in addition to the jail term, Judge Berman sentenced him to 300 hours of community service, three years' probation and $10,000 to be paid to a fund that helps victims of bias crimes." [32]

The charges, as described in the Grand Jury indictment, seem closer to fiction than fact. " . . . under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not be expected to be observed."[33] On a state university college campus in a busy co-ed dormitory filled with boarding students in the bedroom that was shared and being partially paid for by his own roommate who was described as a "computer geek?" Only someone completely unreasonable could think they would not be observed. Besides, no filming took place. How did this indictment go forward?

On May 30, 2012, Ravi waived his right to remain free during the appeals process and began his jail term at the Middlesex County Adult Corrections Center in North Brunswick, New Jersey on May 31, 2012.

Ravi was released from jail on June 19, 2012 after serving 20 days of his 30-day term, with 5 days of credit for good behavior and 5 days of work credits.[99]

Ravi is a permanent resident of the United States who immigrated at age 6. Clementi's family, M.B., and the judge all recommended Ravi not be deported. In June 2012, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced that the convictions were not serious enough to seek deportation. [33]

Many in the gay community recognized Ravi's trial was being used as an example to use the state's authority to put fear into the public:

"While Mr. Clementi's suicide in September 2010 galvanized public attention on the struggles of gay, lesbian and bisexual teenagers, the question of how to punish Mr. Ravi has revealed the deep discomfort that many gay people feel about using the case as a crucible. "You're making an example of Ravi in order to send a message to other people who might be bullying, to schools and parents and to prosecutors who have not considered this a crime before," said Marc Poirier, a law professor at Seton Hall University who is gay and has written about hate-crimes legislation. "That's a function of criminal law, to condemn as general deterrence. But I think this is a fairly shaky set of facts on which to do it." [34]

So we have an 18 year old indicted for something no one ever thought to be a crime before – gossiping in the college dorms!

"The N.J. Supreme Court's decision this week striking down a portion of the state's bias crime statute could win Dharun Ravi a new trial in the Tyler Clementi webcam case, his attorney said.

"The appeal of Ravi's 2012 guilty verdict that included several bias intimidation charges is still ongoing, according to his attorney, Steven Altman of New Brunswick. But it now takes a different turn, he said.

"The decision, released Tuesday, struck down the third section of the statute that focused on the victim's state of mind and said it is the defendant's intent and state of mind that is important, not the victim's.

"However, Ravi was not charged in Clementi's death and the defense maintained the webcam incidents had nothing to do with Clementi's decision to commit suicide."

"Berman would not permit Altman to introduce evidence during the trial that Clementi was upset over his mother's rejection of his homosexuality and other incidents in his life. Berman also prohibited Altman from obtaining some items seized from Clementi's possessions and computer, including the suicide note, Altman said.

"Now the argument has to be that the judge permitted evidence in that taints the entire verdict," the attorney said. "The evidence about Tyler Clementi's state-of-mind. Did that prejudice the jury?" [35]

"The judge, who voiced concerns about the bias statute during the trial, said he did not believe that law was meant for a case like Ravi's. In the end, he said, it came down to whether Ravi was motivated by hate.

"The Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office has appealed Dharun Ravi's short jail sentence, which means the former Rutgers student's won't begin serving time at the end of this month – or anytime soon, a court official said today.

Although at trial it was demonstrated that Ravi never filmed anything, how does the media continue to carry that fallacy in every article it prints?

"Ravi was facing up to 10 years in prison as a result of having several second-degree bias convictions for training a webcam on his roommate, fellow Rutgers freshman Tyler Clementi, during an intimate encounter with another man two years ago."

"Days after the incident, Clementi, 18, committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. Ravi, now 20, was not charged with causing Clementi's death." [36]

And, in Forbes, "Internet technologies make the unwanted sharing of personal information possible. Nowhere was this more vividly demonstrated that in the recent case of Dharun Ravi, who rigged a webcam to spy on his gay roommate Tyler Clementi in a romantic encounter, and then gleefully Tweeted about it, leading to Clementi's suicide. On March 16th, Ravi was found guilty by a New Jersey jury of 15 criminal charges including invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, tampering with evidence, and witness tampering. For those offenses, the judge sentences Ravi to 30 days in jail. Ravi could have been sentenced to a term on 10 years.' [37]

It was Ravi's dorm bedroom housing all of his belongings.

"Both sides in the Dharun Ravi case are now appealing its outcome."

"The prosecution has already appealed Ravi's 30-day sentence."

"And the defense is now challenging the constitutionality of the bias intimidation law under which the former Rutgers freshman was convicted." [38]

That trial and conviction are so savage and brutal against the innocent college freshman, Ravi, as to be equated with the fallacious accusations, indictment counts and sentencing at the Salem Witch trials where the convicted witches were to be the burned alive. Look at what you've done to a young man's life – he has been destroyed. In the words of Marc Poirier: You're making an example of Ravi in order to send a message to other people who might be bullying, to schools and parents and to prosecutors who have not considered this a crime before."

In other words, the state and the media are tyrannically using their power to instill fear into the public to silence them should they voice opposition to the state's unilateral decision to institute same sex marriage against the will of the people from whom that power emanates and to whom they now use it as a weapon.

I hate to say this, but this happened in New Jersey while Governor Christie was at the helm. I can't find one quote from him regarding Ravi's abuse.

This is what is called just. Marriage between one man and one woman is called unjust.

Marriage between one man and one woman is certainly just. To state otherwise is simply insane according to every law upon which this country is grounded.

The only possible way that anyone could state that homosexual relationships are the equivalent of a Marriage, is to use some other measure of morality than that which on which our laws are founded – self-evident truth. The only measure that would be in total opposition to self-evident truth, would be moral relativism which forms the basic tenets of Secular Humanism. The majority opinion in Obergefell and the Federal Circuit court judges who found in favor of homosexual marriage are all in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment for violating the establishment of religion clause. Secular Humanism has been recognized as a religion under the establishment of religion clause [38A] and it is being tyrannically imposed by this administration and across the country by political appointees who have been allowed to make their personal opinions law and have remained unchecked, unquestioned and unimpeached. Why? Political correctness' rabid attacks against anyone questioning the propaganda tool that hides incompetence has frozen open debate and ensures that if one keeps his mouth shut, he can stay in office without the likes of attack dog smear campaign organizations like Fusion GPS [39] and Michael Wolf or SKDKnickerbocker [39A] rifling through divorce records, campaign donations etc.

What is actually unjust is the fact that the LGBT community hijacked the Civil Rights Movement and aligned itself as the persecuted alongside African Americans. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that the Civil Rights Movement was led by a Christian Preacher by the name of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. If the LGBT community's "so-called struggle" to have sex with whomever they choose bore any resemblance to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, then every Black Preacher in the country would be fighting on their side. They are actually fighting against the corrupt nature of the LGBT community fallacious comparison to their rights which were in total alignment to Judeo Christian beliefs and to the Declaration of Independence. Black pastors like Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran are losing their jobs because of LGBT attacks against men of faith who are black.

What is also unjust is the fact that the John Jay reports on the homosexual priest sex scandal demonstrated that homosexual men prey on teenage boys. And, that the alleged cover-up by the Church, could not be a cover-up because if a priest who had homosexual relations with a teenage boy in any parish was moved to another parish after being cleared by psychologists or psychiatrists, then the pastor of the parish had to be informed that some teenage boy was sexually molested by said priest. Who informed the pastor? Why, it would have had to have been the boy's parents. How else would the pastor have known to take action? Why did these "boys" wait fifty years to bring charges? Were they waiting for their parents to die so they could pretend there was a cover-up? There was no cover-up of the homosexual priests. They were all sent for therapy. They had to talk about their sexual proclivities to psychologists and psychiatrists. Does that sound like a cover-up? The pastor then told the next parish pastor about that particular priest's problems and that he was cleared by the medical community and gave him a fresh start and gave the boy in question and his parents the relief that they did not have to ever lay eyes on the sexual predator again.

The pastors were compassionately trying to protect the children's reputations from gossip. The real question is why aren't there lawsuits against the American Psychological Association; the American Psychiatric Association; the American Medical Association; the hospitals where said homosexual priests were treated; and the Pharmaceutical industry that purportedly provided chemical treatment to these men? These homosexual priests were cleared by the medical community who declared they were fit to be in the presence of children – but not fit to be in the presence of teenage boys and the media then erroneously referred to these homosexual priests as pedophiles. No one is excusing what these homosexual priests did; what is in question is the allegation that the Church's silence was protecting the homosexual priest when, in fact, they were protecting teenage boys' privacy and that of their families.[39B]

So, I think since the majority SCOTUS opinion in Windsor includes false information regarding the deliberative process in New York's Marriage Equality Act and the history leading up to it is steeped in questionable interventions in total disregard of the citizens of New York and the laws of the state of New York and its Constitution, that the record should be corrected and that people and SCOTUS should start doing their homework and some fact checking before they make decisions that affect every single American citizen's civil and constitutional rights based on fallacies, religious animus and on the projection of their own obvious racial hatred, belief in their elitist superiority and all justified by an illegal adherence to a morally relativistic establishment of religion that is being imposed on the people of good will by usurpers, communists, socialists and elitist billionaires whose primary goal is to reduce the surplus population of human beings excluding themselves.

Better yet, have the Office of the Inspector Generals in every agency in each state across the entire country review every court decision regarding same sex marriage; every politician who blatantly disregarded the law for political gain; connect all not for profit donations to their sources and political purses; all donations from politicians to these not for profits with their taxpayer discretionary money; all media relationships to smear mongering PR Firms – all smears they conducted – all law firms connected to politicians and all sources connected to them who become politically appointed judges; and shed a little light on this web of deceit.

Then investigate every university bio medical research facility that bought baby body parts from Planned Parenthood's funneling through Stem Express (and Population Council) and every politician, Congressman, U.S. Senator, State legislator, professor, college administrator, doctor, hospital, NIH personnel, U.S. science research agencies and judges that turned a blind eye to the holocaust of human beings' body part trafficking under the guise of science. Then start the impeachments and indictments.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

"The first casualty of a decision constitutionalizing same-sex marriage would be the coherence of the Supreme Court's own precedent, which just two terms ago emphatically reaffirmed the authority of states to decide this very question on the basis of democratic deliberation.

"In Windsor, the Court invalidated the federal marriage definition in the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") because it undermined New York's authority to extend marriage to same-sex couples. The Court left no doubt that state authority – what the Court called the states' "historic and essential authority to define the marital relation" – was the hinge on which Windsor turned. As the Court put it, DOMA's federal definition wrongly sought "to influence or interfere with state sovereign choices about who may be married."

Ironically, the plaintiffs ground their arguments for overturning state marriage laws on Windsor itself. They can do so, however, only by maintaining a studied silence about Windsor's affirmation of state authority over marriage. Their reticence is unsurprising: as federal district judge Juan Pérez-Giménez acidly remarked, "It takes inexplicable contortions of the mind . . . to interpret Windsor's endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage." [40]

The SCOTUS majority opinion in Obergefell is not only Unconstitutional as Justice Roberts stated, but the opinion itself insanely purports to accuse every human being since the beginning of time of animus towards homosexuals. Such a wild generalization makes the opinion a logical fallacy in argumentation so outrageous in its breadth and magnitude as to render those who concurred unfit to practice law in any capacity never mind to be sitting as lifers on the Supreme Court of the United States of America where their only job, were they not so incompetent, is their capacity to apply simple, basic Constitutional law. Obviously they are no longer up to the task and should be relieved from duty. That is the job of the U.S. Congress. Impeach them.

What Obergefell states is that it is now Unconstitutional, bigoted and discriminatory for anyone to state that Marriage between one man and one woman is normal and healthy. That is the message. That is subversive to civil society and prima facie, insane.

Something is certainly causing a rotten, open and festering wound in the United States of America that is harming all of it citizens – especially all of our children. It's time to enforce our criminal laws.

While Kim Davis, a Christian woman sits in jail for refusing to obey the unjust, unconstitutional same sex marriage Obergefell decision by the SCOTUS, and holds fast to her oath to God to uphold the U.S. Constitution, Judge Bunning ignoring his oath to God to uphold the U.S. Constitution hypocritically acted as a tyrant:

"U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning placed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in the custody of U.S. marshals until she complies, saying fines were not enough to force her to comply with his previous order to provide the paperwork to all couples and allowing her to defy the order would create a "ripple effect."

"Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense," Bunning said. "Oaths mean things."

"The idea of natural law superceding [sic] this court's authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed," U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning told Rowan County clerk Kim Davis.(Natural law does supercede his authority – he is not the law – God is the law – Bunning is not God and he is setting a precedent. He is forcing a woman who is upholding the self-evident truths at the basis of our U.S. Constitutional laws enacted to secure our freedoms announced in the Declaration of Independence – freedoms we claim are based on self-evident truths obvious to any sane, reasonable human being – to acquiesce by government fiat to an illegal governmental establishment of religious dictates of moral relativism colloquially referred to as political correctness stemming from a government mandate to Secular Humanism parading in the guise of an objective philosophy.)

Davis, who was tearful at times, testified that she could not obey the order because God's law trumps the court. (She was crying and Judge Bunning was merciless!)

"My conscience will not allow it," she said. "God's moral law convicts me and conflicts with my duties."

Oaths to God certainly do mean things. It is Judge Bunning who has committed a crime – a crime against humanity [41] is specifically defined as purposeful and intentional religious persecution. Judge Bunning imprisoned an innocent Christian woman with guaranteed "conscience protections," and he should remember that:

"Nuremberg Principle IV states:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." [42]

That moral choice is obviously to be found in both of their Oaths to God and, need the judge be reminded from where all law emanates, in the preamble to the Kentucky State Constitution the state of Kentucky declares:

"We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution."

Every state in the union repeats a preamble similar and every state going against the laws of God to whom they swear their allegiance first in their oaths are in seditious treason against the United States of America.

Those of us Grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, are the ones who "ordained" and established the U.S. Constitution and elected as our representatives those who work for us and it is our duty to recall all who have used their office to enact laws against us. It is our duty, our authority and our right to remove and impeach all those in office who act against the laws of God in order to criminalize and actively persecute those whose conscience cannot do otherwise than follow the laws of God.

Footnotes

[A 1] Preet Bharara – Cuomo – Moreland Commission

http://nypost.com/2015/05/31/preet-bharara-creeps-closer-to-cuomo-with-latest-indictment/

[1] SCOTUS SSM Obergefell Question 1 transcript

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_11o2.pdf

Question 2 transcript

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q2_1813.pdf

[2] Windsor

http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/2014/01/US-v-Windsor.pdf

[2A] Definition of Message of Necessity

[3] NYS Marriage Equality Act – history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Equality_Act_%28New_York%29

[3A]Voted out of office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Equality_Act_(New_York)

[4] Bloomberg and closed door sessions

http://nypost.com/2011/06/16/bloomberg-lobbies-albany-for-final-gay-marriage-vote/ Mayor Bloomberg and SSM Political push

[5] Bloomberg and SSM economic benefits

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/24/pf/gay-marriage-economic-impact/

[6] NYS Court of Appeals 2006 Hernandez v. Robles

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/faculty_franke/Gender_Justice/Hernandez_Robles.pdf

Legal Primer – Press Release – history of SSM rulings of NYS Courts

http://www.nyc.gov/html/law/downloads/pdf/pr070606.pdf

[6A] New York Law School review, 485-486

http://www.nylslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2013/11/54-2.Leonard.pdf

[6B] NYS Domestic Relations Law

http://blog.syracuse.com/indepth/2008/06/martinez%20ruling.pdf

[7] Martinez v. County of Monroe

http://www.nyclu.org/case/martinez-v-county-of-monroe-et-al-seeking-recognition-new-york-valid-same-sex-marriages-perform

[8] Cuomo Amicus Curiae

http://www.nyclu.org/files/martinez_v_monroe_ag_amicus_081607.pdf

[9] Hevesi Letter

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/sept07/marriageopinion2.pdf

[10] Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital – reversed

http://courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_07495.htm

[11] Eliot Spitzer and Prostitute Ring

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10cnd-spitzer.html?pagewanted=all

[12] Hevesi and Comptroller pension scandal

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/nyregion/alan-hevesi-ex-state-comptroller-is-granted-parole.html

[13] Eliot Spitzer

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/03/08/attorneys_general_say_law_forbids_same_sex_marriage/

[14] Gov. Patterson SSM Directive/Executive Order

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?pagewanted=all

[14 A-1] NYS Court System

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad1/

[14A] Nocenti Letter

http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/exec_ny_20080514_martinez-decision-on-same-sex-marriages

[14B]Funderburke v. NYS Dept. of Civil Service

http://www.nyclu.org/files/Nocenti_Order_05.14.08.pdf

[14C] [39] NYS Marriage Equality Act and Cornell Law review, p. 202

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3258&context=clr

[14D]ECHR

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/lynne-marie-kohm/same-sex-marriage-not-fundamental-right

[14E] Fourth Circuit Court of appeals, Dissenting Opinion – Judge Niemeyer, p. 84

http://freemarry.3cdn.net/88affd240cd7000ac2_gsm6ivd3y.pdf

[15] NYS Dignity Act News

http://www.outcomebuffalo.com/dignity-pass-snt-6-22100502.htm

[16] GLSEN Survey

http://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2011%20National%20School%20Climate%20Survey%20Full%20Report.pdf

Glsen Survey Archives

http://glsen.org/learn/research/nscs-archive

[16A] Terry Bean

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/07/victim_in_terry_bean_sex_case.html

[16B] Terry Bean

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/07/after_judge_rejects_settlement.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/07/prominent_gay_activist_terry_b.html

[16C] Terry Bean and porn industry

http://snn.bz/whitehouse-bean/

[17] Arne Dunce Letter 2011

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/110607.html

[18] School Safety and White House – Dan Savage – It Gets Better Project

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/2011/03/politics-of-bullying-school-safety-obama-gay-rights-agenda/

[19] Dr. Miriam Grossman and NYC Sex Ed Review

http://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/sex_ed_report.pdf

[20] NYC Parents upset over bawdy Sex Ed.

http://nypost.com/2011/10/23/parent-furor-at-bawdy-sex-ed/

[21] UNESCO Technical

Douglas Kirby, Senior Scientist at ETR (Education, Training, Research) Associates and Nanette Ecker, former Director of International Education and Training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), were contributing authors of this document. Peter Gordon, independent consultant, edited various drafts.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001832/183281e.pdf

[22] Alfred Kinsey

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4750-according-to-kinsey-deviancy-is-the-new-normal

Judith Reisman on Kinsey

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/the_kinsey_coverup.html

[23] Ecker and Long Island

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/fashion/thursdaystyles/17sex.html?oref=login

[24] Kermit Gosnell Trial and the Atlantic

[25] United Nations Plan: Teach Masturbation to Five Year Olds

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/498-united-nations-plan-teach-masturbation-to-5-year-olds

[26] Tyler Clementi Rutgers suicide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi

[26A] Dutch Study, JAMA – Psychiatry, 2001

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=481699

[26B] association of American Medical Colleges, p. 144

https://www.aamc.org/download/414172/data/lgbt.pdf?__hssc=109962074.1.1441642302787&__hstc=109962074.0bad61d87165271656aff10dd7e435f8.1441642302786.1441642302786.1441642302786.1&hsCtaTracking=bd4a6b49-1c77-4054-8711-b55bde24e45b%7C090ff0e5-8d01-493d-8527-9fc74327757d

[27] Tyler Clemente Suicide, New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/02/06/the-story-of-a-suicide?currentPage=all

[28] MB identity protected

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/lawyers_for_man_caught_on_webc.html

[29] MB revealed

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/judge_rules_name_of_man_record.html

[30] Ravi Trial

http://abcnews.go.com/US/rutgers-trial-tyler-clementis-gay-date-tense-questioning/story?id=15832495

[31] Ravi Sentence – 30 days

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/nyregion/dharun-ravi-convicted-in-webcam-spying-apologizes-before-going-to-jail.html?_r=0

[32] Ravi-Judge defends sentence

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/judge-defends-sentence-imposed-on-dharun-ravi.html

[33] Ravi Grand jury Indictment

https://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/ravi-indict.pdf

[33] Ravi serves sentence while appeal waits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi

[34] Gay Community see Ravi trial as example

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/nyregion/Some-Gay-Rights-Advocates-Question-Rutgers-Sentencing.html

[35] Ravi appeal

http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/03/could_dharun_ravi_win_new_trial_in_tyler_clementi.html

[36] The judge, who voiced concerns about the bias statute during the trial

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/dharun_ravi_sentence_middlesex.html

[37] Forbes continues circulating rumor

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/06/01/privacy-light-slap-for-dharun-ravi-harsh-penalties-for-dot-coms/

[38] Both sides appeal

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/dharun_ravi_files_notice_of_in.html

[38A] Secular Humanism is a religion under establishment clause American Humanist Association v The United States-2014

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/03/3587801/district-court-declares-secular-humanism-a-religion/

[39] Fusion GPS

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/planned-parenthood-videos-congress-report/

[39A] SKDKnickerbocker

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/planned-parenthood-crisis-communications-firm-video-120725

[39B] Catholic Church and Homosexual Sex Scandal – Reliance on Discredited Sex Science

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55571193/The-US-Catholic-Church-s-Ruinous-Reliance-on-Discredited-Sex-Science#scribd

[40] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14894/

[41] Crimes against humanity

. . . crimes against humanity can be committed during peace or war.[1] They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; massacres; dehumanization; extermination; human experimentation;extrajudicial punishments; death squads; military use of children; kidnappings; unjust imprisonment; slavery; cannibalism, torture; rape;political, racial, or religious persecution; and other inhumane acts may reach the threshold of crimes against humanity if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

[42] Nuremburg Trials and Superior Orders

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

FURTHER NOTES

HERNANDEZ v. ROBLES N. Y. 1 Cite as 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006) 7 N.Y.3d 338 Daniel HERNANDEZ et al., Appellants, v. Victor L. ROBLES, as City Clerk of the City of New York, Respondent. Sylvia Samuels et al., Appellants, v. New York State Department of Health et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Elissa Kane et al., Appellants, v. John Marsolais, as Albany City Clerk, et al., Respondents. Jason Seymour et al., Appellants, v. Julie Holcomb, as City Clerk of the City of Ithaca, et al., Respondents. Court of Appeals of New York. July 6, 2006. Background: Same-sex couples brought action against administrator of New York City Marriage License Bureau, challenging constitutionality of Domestic Relations Law (DRL) provisions that did not permit same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court, New York County, Doris Ling-Cohan, J., entered summary judgment for same-sex couples. Administrator appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 26 A.D.3d 98, 805 N.Y.S.2d 354, reversed. In separate case, same sex couple sued state Department of Health, claiming that DRL provisions limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, Albany County, Teresi, J., granted summary judgment to Department, and couple appealed. The Court of Appeals, 4 N.Y.3d 825, 796 N.Y.S.2d 579, 829 N.E.2d 671, transferred case. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 29 A.D.3d 9, 811 N.Y.S.2d 136, affirmed. In third case, same-sex couples appealed from judgment of the Supreme Court, Albany County, Kavanagh, J., upholding denial of their requests for a marriage license. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 26 A.D.3d 661, 808 N.Y.S.2d 566, affirmed. In fourth case, appeal was taken from summary judgment of the Supreme Court, Tompkins County, Mulvey, J., entered in favor of the Department of Health in action challenging those portions of the DRL limiting marriage to one woman and one man. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 26 A.D.3d 661, 811 N.Y.S.2d 134, affirmed. Plaintiffs in all four cases appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, R.S. Smith, J., held that: (1) Domestic Relations Law provisions limiting marriage to same-sex couples was supported by rational basis; (2) provisions did not violate due process; and (3) provisions did not violate equal protection. Affirmed. Graffeo, J., filed opinion concurring in the result in which G.B. Smith concurred. Kaye, C.J., filed dissenting opinion in which Ciparick, J., concurred. 1. Marriage O17.5(1) Domestic Relations Law provisions governing marriage did not permit samesex marriage. McKinney's DRL §§ 5 et seq., 10 et seq. 2. Constitutional Law O224(2), 274(5) Marriage O17.5(1) Domestic Relations Law provisions limiting marriage to same-sex couples 2 N. Y. 855 NORTH EASTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES were supported by rational basis, for purposes of challenges under the equal protection and due process clauses of the New York Constitution; Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it was more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships, and that it was better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. (Per opinion of R.S. Smith, J., with two judges concurring, one judge concurring in the result, and one judge not taking part.) McKinney's Const. Art. 1, §§ 6, 11; McKinney's DRL §§ 5 et seq., 10 et seq.

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/faculty_franke/Gender_Justice/Hernandez_Robles.pdf

1. Attempts to overturn the new marriage equality law in New ...

www.religioustolerance.org/h...

o

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

Same-sex marriage (SSM) in New York State ... 2011-NOV-29: Reactions to decision byJustice Wiggins to allow lawsuit to proceed: ... are legal, meetings involving people of other parties are required by law to be open to the public. ... The Fourth Department of the Appellate Division, a state appeals court in Rochester, NY, ...