Living in Alabama it is impossible to avoid the reality that you live in unnecessarily contentious state. Some might have thought I would say “backwards” which is often the case depending on perspective. But, I might have also said “backwords” which would be an allusion the “Ala” in ‘bama that seems to be the defining attribute of a state preoccupied with Old Testament legalism, as illustrated by the so-called “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore. More often than not, Roy veers off into legal interpretations that are more appropriately defined as Islamic extremism. After all, it is their word.
The US Supreme Court
As a journalist, I can tell you that wordplay, name-play, aliases and double entendre are the haute cotour of the writer. Writers often employ such devices when making a point, choosing the best tool for the particular occasion. I can also tell you that there certainly is no monopoly on using such devices, however, it is my opinion that judges and courts – beginning especially with the Supreme Court of the United States and working on down the totem passing through the ignominious Judge Roy Moore and then all the way down to the kangaroo judges in the municipal courts – should use such devices sparingly, if at all.
The law ought to be straight forward and cases should arrive spontaneously and incidentally. Cases that are contrived in advance based on timing, wordplay and political agenda almost always fail to see the more important underlying point, which is that such choreography is almost certainly illegal conspiracy, and probably human trafficking. Therefore, I arrive at the conclusion that Judge “Ginny” Granade’s definition of homosexual marriage as falling under the so-called “equal protection clause” is more akin to an IED than any legitimate extension of constitutional law. In-spite of the inappropriate posturing by virtually everyone involved, especially Roy Moore, I am still conservative (not an Islamic terrorist) and still believe marriage is a convention best relegated to one man, and one woman.
I’m no expert on Constitutional law, and I guess that’s a good thing, because when I went to the source to see what the 14th amendment says about the “equal protection” of “groups” I was reminded that the wisdom of the U.S. Constitution was being side swiped long ago. I didn’t see anything what-so-ever in the 14th amendment about “groups.” In fact, I couldn’t find anything in the Constitutions anywhere about “groups” or even the mention of “marriage.”
I have read the Constitution and oddly enough I found the Bible much simpler to understand. But then, with the Bible I start by rearranging Revelations to be at the end of the Old Testament where it belongs (if King James can arrange the Bible his way then so can I), and then by tearing out the Old Testament and throwing it in the trashcan where it can do the least amount of damage. Saving the Psalms and Proverbs seems innocuous enough, if you choose to follow this doctrine.
That Biblical excerpt having been duly noted, I found the U.S. Constitution to be about individual rights. The saying goes that the greater good supersedes the individual good. But to me, that seems like a bunch of malarkey so I always choose to go along with (my interpretation) of the Constitution which says if the good of every individual is met, the larger group never becomes a problem in the first place.
Judge Ginny Granade seems to be two steps removed from constitutional jurisprudence in arriving at her decision. How exactly does Ginny intend to define homosexuals as a “group?” The equal protection clause is most often noted for it’s application to racial groups. Are black people only qualified to be equal, to eat at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, as long as they are in a group? Really I wonder, does that actually mean that ONE black person could still be denied the right to public access based on nothing more than being black? So in groupspeak, is a group qualified only because they look different? Or because they behave differently? How many shades of gray are there?
I suppose that if an individual black person goes to eat lunch, he might be discriminated against if he decides to throw a rock through the window in order to get to the bar stool. Does groupspeak therefore mean that as long as a group of people throw rocks through the window to create their own group entrance, that it’s ok according to the equal protection clause – but only if they do it together?
Homosexuals don’t necessarily look different. Oh I know, they often have a flair for flamboyant fashion and sometimes make good entertainers (and movies too), but then so do a lot of heterosexuals. You can’t really go by that. But, if homosexual equal protection is based on behaviour alone, then exactly where do you draw the line on group behaviour when it comes to equal protection? Or, did Ginny mean to imply that group equality is based on genetics? It seems to me that Ginny is belaboring her own point.
Ginny also says that marriage is not necessarily about procreation. There are many people who get married with no intention of having children, never have children for whatever reason, or remain married even after the children they have had are grown and flown the coup. Can’t argue with that. But to me, it seems that she’s arguing against a religious doctrine that I most often brand as Catholic cultism. That interpretation could be my bad based on my view as an independent protestant, which is to say, I am fully aware that many people who call themselves protestant are actually practicing that same brand of Catholic cultism. Ginny’s decision should not be based on knocking down her own little religious paper doll (exactly like Roy Moore), it should be based on a solid legal foundation.
What about the Mormon’s? Ain’t they a group? That old bigamy trick isn’t exactly new in the annals of human history. I can’t really come up with a reason why equal protection, as described by Ginny Granade wouldn’t apply to group marriages as well. Since marriage doesn’t have to be about procreation, isn’t it possible to love more than one person at a time? Would Judge Ginny deny equal protection to group love? Ain’t she a good hippie?
I know, that’s just wrong. The hippies were about free love with no commitment. But, we also know based on the annals of history that bigamy is usually manifested when several females marry one male at one time. Of course, that leaves a larger percentage of males in the community who have no chance to marry – unless they choose the only option which would be homosexuality. In cultures where plural marriage is accepted, it usually ends up with a permanent under-caste of subjugated males who ultimately are not homosexual and who are then denied employment advancement because they aren’t part of the married caste. That could be where so called “republican” aristocrats like John Roberts enter the equation, because that also means a larger pool of cheap labor for industrial bosses.
I think Ginny being female has an agenda of her own and of course she defines “female” as a group. Little doubt about it in my mind, homosexual marriage hasn’t got as much to do with homosexuals as it does the feminists and liberals who are advancing their agenda by exploiting the issue. So Ginny, what about this. Ain’t single people a group too? Don’t they deserve equal protection and due process?
Why is it that single people should have to pay for the two for one discount benefits that married people get? Two hundred years ago, population growth was a good thing to be encouraged by the state. Nowadays, it doesn’t seem to me that pushing procreation is such a good idea. Really, singles who wait or don’t have children at all, ought to be the ones who get the discount. Why should single people have to pay for some super bee’s snot nosed rug rats at the company daycare, while her deadbeat husband, or spouse number 2, sits at home collecting insurance benefits and moon lighting for cash under the table by selling Penny Blossoms on the Internet?
If you get right down to it, exactly what business is it of the state or federal government to be involved in marriage “licensing” at all? Legal marriage, based on Ginny Granade’s understanding is totally and completely defunct, and should be abolished from a legal regulation standpoint.
Anyone could still get “married” in a ceremony in their own Church. If you want to live together then you can sign a rental agreement or buy a house together. If you want to place investments in the name of spouse number 2, get a lawyer and work it out. If a woman gets pregnant, she can ask her boyfriend if he wants to legally adopt the child with her. If he doesn’t want to participate in raising children, she has the choice and the equal protection to raise her urchin all by herself. Every single individual has the right to gain insurance through their job, or by paying for it through Obamacare. If your significant other(s) loves you enough, they will give you the money if you can’t afford it. However, no more two for one discounts for breeders. And, if you do choose to breed, pay for your own damn daycare.
The old people have already been through these arguments, and they always come out they same. There is no longer a reason for the continuation of any legal definition of marriage. Marriage, conventional, homosexual, or bigamist shouldn’t be based on the need of insurance benefits. And court cases shouldn’t be decided on the histrionic agenda of militant feminists like “Judge” Ginny Granade.
If there is to be a legal definition for marriage, conventional marriage is the only rational definition and ultimately facilitates the most social equity. Nevertheless, the legal definition of conventional marriage is absolutely null and void at the state level, because virtually all the insurance and benefit questions involved have been on the federal level for quite a long time. The Supreme Court does have a compelling interest – maintaining the definition of conventional marriage on a nationwide basis. Every other path leads to social chaos and ultimately to more social inequity – not less.
If you are homosexual in Alabama about to be married, watch out for the Supreme Court IED. It may not be disarmed after all.
________________________
© 2015 – Jim Casey
TOCC.tv Red HOT Uploads
