Kangaroo courts and the sodomization of marriage

Supreme Court Justices: Upholders of Judeo-Christian values or high priests of Molech

By Desmond McGrath

I must start this discussion stating that I have several gay friends with whom I grew up, we hung out as teenagers, partied together, rode motorcycles/snowmobiles, fished and hunted; generally all things that guys do together in their teens and early 20's. The only thing that we did not have in common was their homosexual orientation versus our heterosexual orientation. Two of them in particular have been in long term same sex relationships for well over two decades; longer than the marriages of many other heterosexual friends have lasted. They have become well respected Engineers, Lawyers, Musicians and Writers. In light of that here are questions I asked myself on this "Gay Marriage" issue that is currently before the Supreme Court:

Do I believe that my gay friends have a legitimate and mutually respectful relationship for decades? Yes!

Do I believe that what they have should be called a "Marriage"? No!

Do I believe that there should be some legal allowances for living wills and other such legislated or adjudicated conveyances such that a partner is not financially disadvantaged during the period they are alive together or after a partner's death? Probably Yes, see later note.

Is it within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to pronounce to the world that there is such a thing as "Gay" or "LGBT" "Marriage"? Unequivocally No!

Justice Alito, perhaps put the most pointed argument:

"Well, what if...these are four people, two men and two women... And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers. What would be the ground under – under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case – what would be the logic of denying them the same right?"

The justice noted the Greeks and Romans had no moral disapproval of homosexual relations, yet neither culture ever considered approving same-sex marriage. The implication was that those cultures must have found it would cause some sort of harm to society.

In a nutshell neither the Greeks and Romans, who had no moral disapproval of homosexuality, nor our Judeo-Christian heritage, ever sanctioned gay marriage; hence the term "Marriage" despite the polytheism of ancient Greece and Rome or the monotheism of the Judeo-Christian culture that eventually supplanted it; always referred to a union between one man and one woman, an unwavering definition that spans the entire legal history upon which this Republic and its legal heritage was founded.

The Law as we know it in the USA is derived from a long lineage of legal principles that have amongst their roots the original Roman and Athenian Republics, Anglo-Saxon Common Law and Judeo-Christian legal concepts (often codified in church based or Canon Law) including the 10 Commandments of Moses. This long legal tradition is reflected in the lawgivers/makers in the frieze at the Supreme Court Building.


In fact one of the founding documents for America was brought into existence 800 years ago when Stephen Langton (archbishop of Canterbury 1207-1228) crafted the Magna Charta and lesser known Charta De Foresta. Langton melded together all the base of Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian legal concepts, Canon Law and the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition of nearly one millennium at the time. The Magna Charta not only dealt with Marriage but is in fact part and parcel to and mentioned within many of the State Constitutions especially those of the 13 colonies that predate the US Constitution. It's considered a founding document of the Republic. There is an excellent paper on the subject: Richard. H. Helmholz, "Magna Carta and the ius commune," 66 University of Chicago Law Review 297 (1999)

Quote: Freedom in marriage, the right secured to widows (at least in part) by the Charter's chapter 8, was also a fundamental tenet of the medieval canon law. "No one is to be compelled to marry another" (d. a. C. 31 q. 2 c. 1).72 "Marriages should be free" (X Magna Carta 4.1.29). "Similar statements were frequent in several of the basic texts of the medieval canon law, and they were repeated tirelessly by all the commentators. Freedom of entry into marriage was a value the church sought actively to implement in its own tribunals, and this freedom clearly encompassed a negative right, the freedom not to marry. This was not, of course, a freedom limited to widows. All persons, young or old, were to be free from coercion. It cannot be said, therefore, that Magna Carta stated the full canon law on this subject.

It should be noted that this freedom was premised on even then a longstanding definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. It is also interesting the concept of negative rights; as the overriding premise of the United States Constitution is the concept of legislative prohibition.

Article I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

While not so well known on this side of the Atlantic, Lord Henry Thring is considered one of the greatest legislative draughtsman of all time. His seminal work "PRACTICAL LEGISLATION, THE COMPOSITION AND LANGUAGE OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT AND BUSINESS DOCUMENTS" has as much validity today after 100+ years since its publication as it did when he was senior Counsel for Parliament in the reign of Queen Victoria. To quote writings:

"The proper use of definitions is to include or exclude something with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of which there is a doubt without such a definition, and no attempt should be made to make a pretence of scientific precision by defining words of which the ordinary meaning is sufficiently clear and exact for the purpose of the Act in which they are used."

There is also a Latin legal maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius": to express one thing is to exclude another

In laymen's terms the only way the Supreme Court Justices can justify "Gay" Marriage is to redefine the word "Marriage" which has had a plain meaning for millennia across many (Poly and Mono) theistic cultures and religious/spiritual traditions, even the ancient Druids, Celts and other Pagans. If they attempt that, from where to they derive their authority, certainly not from any legal tradition or rules of judicial conduct upon which the court was founded or operates and most assuredly not from the very Constitution itself.

Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971) is a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Baker appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question."

This was a precedent setting ruling affirming that the "Gay Marriage" question it was outside the purview and jurisdiction of the federal government, which only received limited powers from "We the People" via the Constitution. Judges are not constitutionally empowered to make laws; this prohibition against judicial lawmaking most assuredly includes a prohibition on redefining the word "Marriage" to suit the political bent of certain justices on the bench. Given that homosexuality is not a religion and that the institution of marriage has been one of spiritual/religious significance since the dawn of civilization; Article I of the Bill or Rights would preclude Congress from passing any law that redefined the word "Marriage" in such a way that it included same sex or pedophilic or polygamy groups whose sexual mores offended the moral doctrines of the overwhelming majority of religions as we know it on the earth today. In essence it would be passing a law regulating the religious based family cornerstone of civilization; one man and one woman procreating new life and the freedom of them to exercise it. Every LGBT on the planet is the product of one man and one woman, but the way a very small rabid Marxist subset act, one would believe it's because Pluto was aligned with Uranus.

"The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race. Oliver Wendell Holmes (1897)

At this moment we have two Justice's, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elana Kagan, who should have recused themselves from the case due to the fact that they had presided over same sex marriages prior to the current case being heard. I agree with Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court in his response to (CNSNews.com) – On May 17, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated the marriage of two men and used the occasion to cite her constitutional right to do so., "That's grounds for impeachment" considering that the court is still in session and has not handed down it decision.

Of course who can forget Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a model. She preferred top down constitutions like South Africa and Canada where the black robed high priests of Moloch of the respective Supreme Courts decide and what your rights should be "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified (to the high priests of Moloch emphasis mine) in a free and democratic society."

While the neutered politically correct Republican Congress has forgotten all about the resounding landslide victories 'We the People' have delivered them to counter the Obama agenda, it is highly doubtful that any impeachment of Ginsburg for bad behavior will be forthcoming unless "We the People" raise our voices and demand it, even signing a country wide petition to do so. After all they won't even set term limits for themselves.

If these Justices are willing to redefine a word and a several millennia old religious/spiritual based concept to accommodate 1.2 to 5.6 % of the population who Identify as "LGBT" what is to stop them from in the future from making the definition of marriage even more inclusive? Perhaps the age of marriage will gradually be whittled away so that NAMBLA can legalize its activities, so that the rape of young virgins by ISIL is no longer a statutory rape but consensual marriage; eventually the definition of marriage could include family pets and more than two people, so that Brittany Sonnier could marry her dog as well as the 15 year old boy she was having her way with while getting drunk and high. Once the skids are greased it's a slippery downhill slope that has no return, hence the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

It must be realized that the founding principle of America was Liberty, religious men of conviction fought alongside atheist and agnostics, black (for example Wentworth Cheswell and Crispus Attucks) along white as did American tribes like the Lower Creeks, Oneidas and Tuscaroras; nor can it be forgotten that the man solely responsible for the military discipline and training of the Continental Army, Baron von Steuben was by all accounts gay in the original age of 'don't ask don't tell'. It could be argued that without Von Steuben's military training prowess, the Continental Army would have lost the war. It is also interesting to note that later in life "Steuben was certainly not against the traditional family. Two of the young officers he subsequently boarded with General John Armstrong and Colonel William North subsequently had wives and many children. Steuben eventually made North and Colonel Benjamin Walker his sons by adoption. The fact that he gave two men this honor again argues that his project was brotherhood not homosexual love."

In great part the adoption was to ensure the continuation of Steuben's Estate in the era before income and inheritance taxes despite being in debt at the time of his death.

This gets down to the crux of the gay marriage debate; what is the primary motive of those suing to have a "Gay Marriage"? Is it not to be discriminated against financially as compared to whatever benefits traditional opposite sex married couples receive in contradistinction to those who are single and unmarried? Or is it a veiled attempt to destroy and undermine Christianity in general by an even smaller subset of the gay community who are far more motivated by something else other than being gay? In the book Pink Swastika and website is the following passage:

When the first edition of The Pink Swastika was published in 1995, the homosexual community was heavily invested in a campaign to equate homosexuals with Jews as Nazi victims in order to exploit the Holocaust for their political advantage. The primary symbol of their movement at that time was the inverted pink triangle, which had been used by the Nazis to identify homosexuals interned in German work camps during the Third Reich, and it was common to hear "gay" activists talk about "the Gay Holocaust."

The Pink Swastika was written to challenge that campaign. Because, while there certainly were some homosexual victims of the Nazi regime, and a record of harsh public condemnation of homosexuality by the Nazi Party, the true, complete story of homosexuality in Nazi and pre-Nazi Germany does not in the least help the "gay" cause.

If The Pink Swastika were the "pack of lies" the homosexual movement claims it is, the book would not have influenced their "Gay Holocaust" strategy in the smallest degree. It would have been easy to discredit and disregard. Instead, how did the "gay" leaders respond to its challenge? They stopped talking about the Nazis almost entirely and changed their symbol from the pink triangle to the rainbow flag.

This gets to the crucial issue, that the very small subset of the 1.2 to 5.6 % of the population who Identify as "LGBT" are clearly trolling Christian businesses in jurisdictions with justices and judges cut from the same black cloth robes of Moloch as Kagan and Ginsburg to launch punitive damage suits and put those Christians out of business. Yet in jurisdictions where there are similarly sympathetic judges and Sharia Law is gaining a foothold this Gaystapo will not go to the bakeries of those of the Islamic faith and seek similar cakes as demonstrated on the Louder with Crowder website from a hidden camera expose in Dearbornistan? Despite the fact that ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), you know that Junior Varsity team playing for what Obama calls one of the world great religions; are executing and throwing gays off roofs on a daily basis, why aren't they doing that for retaliation?

I would suggest that this is because the Gaystapo and the ISIL are part of the same team co-opted into the Marxists/Socialist extermination of Christianity that started in France at the same time America was founded:

"Voltaire bore an implacable hatred of all religions, of all monarchs, and of all morality derived from religious belief. He was obsessed with a fiendish desire for the total destruction of all three. He ended all his letters with the battle cry, "Let us crush the wretch! Crush the wretch!" The "wretch" to whom he referred, of course, is Christ and His Church. Christians, said Voltaire, are "beings exceedingly injurious, fanatics, thieves, dupes, imposters ... enemies of the human race." In the war against Christianity, according to Voltaire, "It is necessary to lie like a devil, not timidly and for a time, but boldly and always."

In America gays are not thrown off roofs, burned alive or persecuted except in the mind of the Gaystapo. They are free to fly their rainbow flag and parade down any street in America wearing whatever it takes to make them feel special or express themselves. They get the same education, have their own websites, books, magazines and businesses; such as bakeries, flower shops, jewelry stores, bars, boutique hotels, travel agencies and the like. Those are part of the enumerated provisions of the Bill of Rights, in particular Article I and have nothing to do with the inalienable rights we were all endowed with by our creator of which the LGBT community are equally endowed and take full measure of. That does not include the right to destroy the Judeo-Christian sanctity of marriage for political purposes.

The Gaystapo did not go to a gay (or Muslim) owned business and to get flowers, cakes, rings or a photographer to cater to their communal event; they specifically targeted a Christian one. Mark my words if the Supreme Court redefines marriage the Gaystapo will be approaching every Church (except their partners in larceny against Christianity the radical Mosques) to get married and then sue for damages due to discrimination by the pastors and churches that refuse. What better way to destroy the last true holdouts of Christianity in America, after all the infiltration of the Catholic Church by Communists has been well documented by Dr Bella Dodd and others: "In the 1930's, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within. The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops."

When Randy Weaver was broke and impoverished he was entrapped by Federal BATF Agents to saw off two shotguns, which eventually lead to the standoff at Ruby Ridge where his wife and child were murdered. Attorney Gerry Spence won an acquittal on those charges and here is an excerpt of the letter he wrote to a friend Alan Hirschfield on why he defended Randy Weaver:

Randy Weaver's principal crime against the government had been his failure to appear in court on a charge of possessing illegal firearms. The first crime was not his. He had been entrapped – intentionally, systematically, patiently, purposefully entrapped – by a federal agent who solicited him to cut off, contrary to Federal law, the barrels of a couple of shotguns. Randy Weaver never owned an illegal weapon in his life. He was not engaged in the manufacture of illegal weapons. The idea of selling an illegal firearm had never entered his mind until the government agent suggested it and encouraged him to act illegally. The government knew he needed the money. He is as poor as an empty cupboard. He had three daughters, a son and a wife to support. He lived in a small house in the woods without electricity or running water. Although he is a small, frail man, with tiny, delicate hands who probably weighs no more than a hundred and twenty pounds, he made an honest living by chopping firewood and by seasonal work as a logger.

This man is wrong, his beliefs are wrong. His relationship to mankind is wrong. He was perhaps legally wrong when he failed to appear and defend himself in court. But the first wrong was not his. Nor was the first wrong the governments. The first wrong was ours.

In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last has become the people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays. They were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong.

That none of us felt responsible for having lost our freedom has been a part of an insidious progression. In the beginning the attention of the flock was directed not to the marauding wolf but to our own deviant members within the flock. We rejoiced as the wolf destroyed them for they were our enemies. We were told that the weak lay under the rocks while we faced the blizzards to rustle our food, and we did not care when the wolf took them. We argued that they deserved it. When one of our flock faced the wolf alone it was always eaten. Each of us was afraid of the wolf, but as a flock we were not afraid. Indeed the wolf cleansed the herd by destroying the weak and dismembering the aberrant element within. As time went by, strangely, the herd felt more secure under the rule of the wolf. It believed that by belonging to this wolf it would remain safe from all the other wolves. But we were eaten just the same.

No one knows better than children of the Holocaust how the lessons of history must never be forgotten. Yet Americans, whose battle cry was once, "Give me liberty or give me death," have sat placidly by as a new king was crowned. In America a new king was crowned by the shrug of our shoulders when our neighbors were wrongfully seized. A new king was crowned when we capitulated to a regime that is no longer sensitive to people, but to non-people – to corporations, to money and to power. The new king was crowned when we turned our heads as the new king was crowned as we turned our heads as the poor and the forgotten and the damned were rendered mute and defenseless, not because they were evil but because, in the scheme of our lives, they seemed unimportant, not because they were essentially dangerous but because they were essentially powerless. The new king was crowned when we cheered the government on as it prosecuted the progeny of our ghettos and filled our prisons with black men whose first crime was that they were born in the ghettos. We cheered the new king on as it diluted our right to be secure in our homes against unlawful searches and to be secure in the courts against unlawful evidence. We cheered the new king on because we were told that our sacred rights were but "loopholes" but which our enemies: the murderers and rapists and thieves and drug dealers, escaped. We were told that those who fought for our rights, the lawyers, were worse than the thieves who stole from us in the night, that our juries were irresponsible and ignorant and ought not to be trusted. We watched with barely more than a mumble as the legal system that once protected us became populated with judges who were appointed by the new king. At last the new king was crowned when we forgot the lessons of history, that when the rights of our enemies have been wrested from them, we have lost our own rights as well, for the same rights serve both citizen and criminal.

Randy Weaver's original crime was giving into the pressure of an undercover government agent to saw off two shotguns, instead of telling the agent to go elsewhere. The Christian Baker, Flower shop and Photographer refused to put their Christian beliefs aside for gay customers, whose lifestyle they disagreed with. Instead of going elsewhere these gay customers turned to the government; to quote Fox News.

"Individuals are being persecuted and prosecuted using the leverage of the government through these homosexual activists," he said. "Government has become a weapon that homosexual activists are using against Christian business owners."

The redefinition of marriage is not a case that should be adjudicated by the Supreme Court, but rather the two cases that should be heard is:

1. Should Christians be punished via statutory duress, for sticking up for their personal religious convictions and refusing to provide service to someone whose lifestyle contradicts their core religious beliefs and moral fiber?
   
   
2. Are same sex partnerships in particular states financially disadvantaged and discriminated against by statutory rules within the state when compared to a traditionally married Christian couple of one man and one woman?
   

If the answer to the latter is affirmative the culprit is the state for having discriminatory rules not the Christian couple who believe that marriage is ordained under God as being between one man and one woman. This does not require the redefinition of "Marriage" and leaves the majority LGBT community with what they really want which is the "Freedom to Not Marry" for financial purposes! Something that has been long recognized as a right even before it was codified in the Magna Charta.

I believe that any Justice of the Supreme court that believes that they have the high moral authority to redefine the word "Marriage" which has had a plain meaning for Millennia as being between one man and one woman, into something else that it has never been to satisfy a political agenda is guilty of Judicial Misconduct and should be removed from office.

Article 3 Section 1

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.

It is no longer neither a Democracy nor a Republic when a small rabidly vocal Marxist fraction of the 5% of Americans who identify as LGBT can dictate their agenda against the 71% of the USA who define themselves as Christian and use the court systems and the Government to facilitate their attacks. This pie chart is the religious breakdown of Singapore and curiously enough you never see anyone either vocally complain about or use litigation to remove crosses or other Christian images despite Christianity only make up for 18.4% of the total and Non-Religious 17%

Religion in Singapore, census of those 15 or older (2010)[1]



I would attribute this to the sustained efforts of the late Lee Kwan Yew whom I wrote about previously, to stamp out all forms of Marxist insurrection in Singapore while in America we allowed a gay islamo-sycophantic Marxist of unknown credentials become President, supported by unknown numbers of fellow travelers in the courts and various alphabet soup agencies that have been increasingly controlled out of the executive branch in blatant treasonous disregard to the Constitution, stating "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation." A nation that is sliding fast from First World to Third World status since the Civil Rights, Immigration and Great Society impositions were started in 1965.

Perhaps we should look to the current Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, speaking to MP's before a vote modifying some sodomy laws in 2007, "Singapore is basically a conservative society...The family is the basic building block of this society. And by family in Singapore we mean one man, one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit." Not surprising Singapore in the 50 years since Independence has gone from a Third World Island to a First World Asian Economic Tiger, unfettered by the Marxist intrigues of Kagan, Ginsburg or Soetoro and their fellow travelers anointed by unholy oil and slid in to positions of bureaucratic power.

© Desmond McGrath