This is my reaction to the errors of the Iowa Supreme Court
Their opinion can be found at Iowa Supreme Courts Opinions April 3 2009
Points wrong with Iowa supreme court decision: they never question homosexuality as corruption upon confused, misguided, in world that obscures The Kingdom of God. They find homosexuality repugnant but they never question it for other people, though their own senses reject it. That’s the first problem: no evaluation amid the lies of society, homosexuality may be false.
The Iowa Supreme Court seems to be ignorant that no one wants to be gay, and homosexuality has caused many problems within the family and society. They seem to think it’s a good thing—and I don’t believe its claimed to be so by alleged and self-proclaimed homosexuals themselves.
To them it’s all about equality, but gays couples and heterosexual couples are like apples and oranges. One reproduces, the other can not. Obviously marriage exists so a man and a women can care for a child they create. That is why marriage exists. Marriage does not extend the commitment of love, commitment in general does…love constructs and defines the commitment of love, ultimately.
The urge to gay marriage, is the cloying urge to reproduce. Reproduction is big on earth; and consistent with the image of western civilization. Yet gay people can’t reproduce, so marry them and maybe they can’t.
The issue these liberal confusions illuminate is the tension in western civilization between solving and accepting problems. Is it better to solve a problem, or accept a problem. Obviously the humanist attempts to solve a problem, not accept a problem; yet in modern society the humanist is falsely defined as great for accepting problems ie, what does not make sense for him.
Yet for humanism to solve homosexuality involves hard realizations; such as the effects of a dark universe in a lying society, the effects of racial disharmony upon the psyche, the tradition of objectifying women; all of which can lead the aversion of women, to the false path of homosexuality; and these issues, are so true, that for a western civilization predicated upon lies misconstruing the human being as human; deliberately obscuring the dualism between appearance and reality, the kingdom of God, and western civilization; the universe and earth; the afterlife and material world; These misconstruations continuously fight against truth; to the extent solved problems would attack the core thesis of western civilization, construed here as reproducing a large population.
Regarding homosexual rights regarding burial decisions, health insurance, health club memberships; let us remember the financial advantages to married couples are to encourage reproduction and recognize the cost of having a child. Any other disadvantages childless gay couples receive should be remedied, without marriage, but through specific laws giving certain rights to all couples; such as hospital visitation. Probably through some simple registration of significant other.
The County offered five primary interests of society in support of the legislature’s exclusive definition of marriage. The first three interests are broadly related to the advancement of child rearing. Specifically, the objectives centered on promoting procreation, promoting child rearing by a mother and a father within a
marriage, and promoting stability in an opposite-sex relationship to raise
and nurture children.
These are essentially what I have just said. Lets see if they are correctly rebutted.
But first the court discusses whether same sex couples are fit to raise children, and cite sources pro and con through professional testimony; the only source I would accept are the children themselves. They have first hand experience, and the absence of their testimony and citation is appalling, and negligent by the court, and in my mind negates all the professional testimony.
Personally, my very limited exposure to children under same sex parents, exposed a tragic situation, because the child is aware of the farce and falseness of same sex sexual relations; the child is being raised under something unnatural—thus any attack on gay marriage, must include a case against the legitimacy of homosexuality itself—which in my writings below I do—-the absence of any public debate regarding whether homosexuality actually is a delusion–is also galling, and not taking on an issue seriously.
The court then ascertains the legitimacy of the courts over the legislature—and it is a legitimacy I agree with; because the legislature cares about being reelected, and the courts care about truth.
But when the courts are so far from truth; of spiritual recognition, of seriously discussing the truth of homosexuality, from recognizing marriage only encourages the reproduction of the kingdom of god and is meant to be deceptive; of recognizing the truth of how shallow marriage is compared to love—we recognize a flawed judiciary—flawed by a lack of spiritual axis, by so few judges judging that they are inhibited and overworked, by the limitation of judging to a few, when all are capable of arriving at truth through the good logic of a good case. Thus, to take on gay marriage, we must address the flawed structure of federal judiciary that has exposed itself so.
They seem to think marriage is a constitutional right. It is a traditional right. They seem to think it is part of a search for greater freedom, when it leads to children which decreases ones liberty, and binds two together till death, which is also a decrease in freedom. Thus to take on gay marriage, one must make the hard choice to expose marriage itself as not the Shangri law, so many pressured people make it out to be.
Thus freedom, is not inherently within marriage, and equality is not meant for apples and oranges. One would think gay couples would notice the benefits of not having to have kids, and not being bound to each other through domestic turbulence.
Finally, it should be recognized that the constitution belongs to the
people, not the government or even the judicial branch of government.
SeeIowa Const. art. I, § 2 (“All political power is inherent in the people.
Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the
people, and they have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same,
whenever the public good may require it.”). While the constitution is the
supreme law and cannot be altered by the enactment of an ordinary statute,
the power of the constitution flows from the people, and the people of Iowa
retain the ultimate power to shape it over time.
(“Amendments to the Constitution”).
See Iowa Const. art. XThe irony here is political power is inherently in the people because officials can not create the shape and form of government, only administrate through it. Thus the problems of too few overworked and inhibited judges, lacking spiritual guidelines, must be resolved by the people.
The primary constitutional principle at the heart of this case is the doctrine of equal protection. The concept of equal protection is deeply rooted in our national and state history,
This is where the false reasoning must be shown. Because heterosexuals can reproduce, and gay couples can’t, saying the two are equal is like making apples and oranges the same. I am an organic grower. You don’t care for one vegetable like you do another–some like manure, others can’t take it; some want water at these certain stages of their growth, others want it at different intervals—some are protected by weeds, others hindered by them, some are better transplanted, others have to be sown by seed. So to say all vegetables are treated equally is ridiculous–different qualities mandate different treatments; this is what is missed by the Iowa Supreme Court. Different qualities have different laws governing their optimum growth. Equality under the law has to prove an equality of subject, or you get into a very ridiculous situation.
It is fine for the court to say laws must adapt to the times; but not if the issues of these times are not examined properly. Then law is helter skelter responding to authority of the times, without questioning authority as courts are meant to do. A slave is not property because they possess similar attributes to non slaves; though their heritage is different. Gay couples are not similar to straight couples because they have a fundamental difference of sexual orientation. The judges gloss over this difference like a bad organic grower. Absolute equality ignores differences, and differences should not be ignored, to say nothing how the domain of marriage is for the rights of a certain kind of subject; ones that reproduce.
The foundational principle of equal protection is expressed in article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution, which provides: “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or
class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall
not equally belong to all citizens.”
The key word they ignore here are “the same terms”. The terms of gay and straight couples are fundamentally different as one can reproduce and the others can’t. Even one uses an orifice of reproduction, and the other one of emitting digestion. These are different terms. These different terms are like a judge being stricter upon one with priors, than one without priors. This like minors not having the same rights as adults, or different tax rates for different wealths.
The court then cites the counties argument that gay couples are not similarly situated as straight couples. This seems to be what I am saying. “
In considering whether two classes are similarly situated, a court
cannot simply look at the trait used by the legislature to define a
classification under a statute and conclude a person without that trait is not
similarly situated to persons with the trait.
because the plaintiffs cannot” procreate naturally.”
This last is what I don’t understand. It seems to me the traits of subject are integrally a part of whether subjects are similarly situated.
people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal
protection claim could be run aground onto the shoals of a threshold
analysis if the two groups needed to be a mirror image of one another.
Yet I think equal rights very much carry a capacity to measure equal subjects, and for one group to prove they are like another, is very easy. For instance to gain visitation hospital rights, it would be very easy to prove a gay couple is like a married couple; but regarding marriage, it is very difficult because marriage has reproduction inherently within it; otherwise there would be no need for marriage.
They say the law itself must be equal, I say the people under the law must be equal. I begin to see the lack of cited testimony of children of gay couples as consistent with the ignorance of different rights according to age.
While the court is right to soon mention marriage may measure a commitment of a relationship, regardless of sexual orientation; ultimately this classification pales before the grandeur of love itself; ultimately there must be another designation to measure commitment than marriage, if such designation is fairly needed at all—and the commitment signified by marriage is so for the raising of children, that applying the term to gay couples undermines the varied meanings and causes of commitments which distinguish one type of commitment from another.
Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage
laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to
heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships,
many raising families, just like heterosexual couples.
Again, this makes no sense, until the veracity of homosexuality is examined in public forum—for there are a lot of lies in western civilization, whose context we lose—and until there is strict testimony from the children of same sex relationships. There is no recognition of the difference between reality and appearance, as if that long issue, has disappeared—like society presents us with nothing to see through—an understanding judges should have most of all.
And yet it is legally consistent to address as such that if partners are raising children together, they are entitled to the same financial advantages as married couples. It is just my studies actually and logically show the fallacy of same sex partnerships raising children. Because children can see through the phony. And the unnatural may not be disposed to raise children well.
I would like to take this moment to say I do not believe gay people are yearning to be married, but that the forces of reproduction, unable to reproduce, yearn for their marriage, in false hope that will enable further reproduction.
Under such a law, gay or
lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a
committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation,
and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.
This is a very naïve view because it tarnishes love itself as the sole provider for the deep need for committed personal relationship—and it gives a significance to marriage does not signify. Marriage does not signify a greater love, than love in general….Marriage signifies the opportunity for reproduction because two people have made a commitment to marriage. A committed personal relationship is an ideal—a marriage is a sugar coated illusion designed to bring people together to morally justify the imposition of the reproduction of the kingdom of god, and necessary in these times because people are not inclined to reproduce the kingdom of god by choice.
The court goes on to mention the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, without analyzing homosexuality itself, and its merit, within the context of a society that ignores basic truths such as the kingdom of god. Thus what can be done for the benefit of the army, is not allowed. And the pain homosexuals have caused themselves and others, is bypassed; and this is so irresponsible. Without dealing with the issue why something is discriminated against, the root of the problem is never gotten to. Case in point; discrimination against blacks never considers the option of blacks moving back to Africa, and the discrimination being based on their wrongly being here. Case in point the federal government never considers its prime point was to avoid warring between the states— without looking at the causes of prejudice, you condemn opinion and ignore subject.
Then there is the fact Gays separate themselves from society so engaging in earnest dialogue with them over these issues is difficult. Rather than facilitate a public forum to work out these deep issues; the state acts as if these issues are unrecoverable and the people are to accept the unresolveable. This defies the logic of why we have courts; to get to truth, to resolve conflict, not perpetuate it.
People are to be judged individually, but issues are to be resolved and explained—and until it is explained why someone is homosexual, I will always be suspicious of it–the way I am to any unexplained phenomena—that is the nature of inquisitive thinking.
The courts say it has been said homosexuality comes at birth, it is immutable, but unlike green eyes, or height, or hair color; no gene for it has been found. What further proof of its falseness is required?
Thus perceived unfair treatment of homosexuals is based on perceived falseness, and not perceived truth, as the court assumes, because perceived truth commands fairness and perceived falseness brings on prejudice, and prejudice is not a bad thing insofar as it is a right reaction to the false.
The court mentions sexual orientation as prime to one’s identity, and concludes that makes discrimination against it unfair. I agree it is prime to ones identity, but would think one’s identity is prime to being judged and viewed; especially as there are class traits.
We begin with the County’s argument that the goal of the same-sex
marriage ban is to ensure children will be raised only in the optimal milieu.
The civil marriage statute is
under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of
parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to
provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than
This is just not true as children are taken and protected from their parents if their parents are child abusers, etc.
If the marriage statute was truly focused on
optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not
merely gay and lesbian people.
These people are given a benefit of the doubt perhaps, but swiftly removed from child rearing if violating. Moreover, the lack of testimony from actual children of same sex marriage ruins any serious analysis of the capacity of same sex couples to raise children: as does the absence or glossing over the nature of homosexuality itself.
I firmly question the same sex environment upon a child. I do not believe the assumption this is OK is true; because I have witnessed differently, and there are too many absences of inquiry here—mainly being how can one group find pleasure another group finds pain in.
Then the court cites allowing gay marriage will not reduce the level of procreation; yet that is a specious argument because if marriage is for procreation, than why would another group want it? Because marriage is erroneously seen as great, when it is a trick. And it is the duty of wiser people to point this out.
The court goes on to say that gay couples may create a child with other partners and raise it with each other; thus fitting the bill of being a part of procreation. Leaving aside the alleged hurt to those raised by same sex parents—this essentially skirts the issue; while such relation is thus then consistent with procreation—couples are able to raise children without being married, and I have said, raising children should entitle one to financial benefits, but without needing to misrepresent the designation of marriage.
Let me try to explain, simply, why marriage is not for gays. Say we had a realer state that actually discussed population and reproduction, and what we reproduce, at a state level, and by the people in free assemblies. I think there is a consensus that lowering the birth rate would improve the quality of life. But we don’t take on this discussion.
Because marriage encourages reproduction. And the discussion of reproduction would soon encompass that we reproduce the kingdom of god, which is an altered state. Marriage, not love, signifies reproduction. This is very simple. Gays and straights are like apples and oranges, and marriage is morally ambiguous, because reproduction is not a societal issue, because the kingdom of god is reproduced, and if that becomes apparent, the praxis of western civilization changes. If you see marriage as encouraging reproduction, substantively making marriage different from love, you see the legal irony that marriage is not for gays.
Marriage may seem like a great thing, it is meant to seem to, to play upon people’s insecurities, so that the kingdom of god is reproduced. The kingdom of god is an altered brain-dead state. A sophisticated knowledge of marriage recognizes marriage is not a great thing. Love can be a great thing. Marriage is the subtle institution of reproduction and it is unsophisticated not to know this.
And homosexuality is suspicious unless it is explained why one person is gay and another is not. There is enough lies in the world for people to be manipulated into assuming their gayness, and really not be. I believe gender inequality, racial disharmony, an unnatural western civilization, can all cause the impression of gayness, but that if these are identified as causes, the gayness is no longer there.
Really, if anyone reading this can explain to me the cause of their gayness, convince me acts I consider painful and unpleasant can be felt as positive, please enter into this dialogue with me. Otherwise just assuming people are gay, when you are not, is just accepting authority, in a foolish world, rather than questioning it, and going by your own senses. Please, if you can respond, do so.
You see the irony is this; if you explained marriage is about reproduction, it would be understood; but you can’t do this because marriage is designed to fool people into reproducing.
The irony of all this, the moral of the story, further analysis reveals, is that I believe, when a married gay couple divorces, their homosexual orientation dissolves.