Same Sex Marriage, America’s Judiciary, Geopolitics & My Own Life

I find myself beginning this essay or Facebook Note or Blog Post with a quote from dissenting Justices in a recent Supreme Court decision. It is not so easy to say why the Supreme Court ‘s actions matter so much to one looking at America from my position and situation. The words below are about raw power. They are not from a case arising from the FISA court which allegedly has rubber stamped any sort of spying on the American people which the government wants to do. They are not words from a case arising from a case brought in one of America’s most rotten school districts in the court-overseen South. No they do not come from one of the never brought “effects of forced racial integration” cases in which countless poor white children and Asian kids are shuffled into misery and white middle class kids are driven from systems which have become laboratories for entitlement and racial abuse by African-Americans and others while still not advancing the majority of the members of those groups in those rotten districts. They certainly do not come from a case involving the countless injustices and abuses I have suffered but am not crazy enough to try to bring to trial. No, this is a case involving homosexual (Lesbian here) marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court has long been the real governing power in the United States presiding over the judiciary that has run a society I have always found amazingly unjust.
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins,and with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins as to Part I, dissenting. This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.
I (A)
The Court is eager—hungry—to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete (ones) .
I may well end up in jail one day but perhaps I make a less credible complaining party because I have not been. In my life I have often sought justice and realized that the justice system was in my view not interested in the justice I was seeking. I think it is possible that one day I will go to jail for something I think not only unjust, contrived and horrible but truly absurd. Of course jail is not absurd and one is likely to plea, negotiate or confess to avoid it and that act strengthens the legitimacy of one’s persecutors. But this is not a simple Facebook Note or Blog Post about corrupt federal and other judicial powers. It is not about my sometimes expressed sentiment that I am living in hell which has been echoed by countless other Americans.

This is one of those Facebook Notes and also Blog Posts which gets too long and a bit too complex and rambles. It has something to do with the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage. It has something to do with the trial of George Zimmerman for second degree murder the killing of Trayvon Martin. It has something to do with the proceedings following the killing of Martin Rivault and the coming of Faith Camp which is how the young Martin Rivault entered my life to some small degree in years past. It has something to do with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Affirmative Action. These things would at least have a theme in that they are proceedings of the U.S. courts. But they would still make for a scattered and rambling and long essay. But somehow, into this mix come elements that eliminate any chance of an essay being constructed in traditional form from the topics about which I am writing. Not quite in the vein of court decisions but still in the context of the American legal system is the case of Edward Snowden and the NSA leaks. It has been compelling television to watch this situation play out as a legal drama along with other legal dramas. All these things seem to shape my experience of what America is and where it is heading in this moment in which I live.
I am of the opinion that our understanding of governance here needs to be revisited. The shift to a better view of federalism would be part of it and that view seems to be promised in the majority opinion which Justice Scalia criticizes in the dissenting paragraph above. Here is some good federal language from the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy:

a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate
the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, but DOMA, with a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statutes and Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 3
The whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach. Its operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of NewYork, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. Assessing the
validity of that intervention requires discussing the historical andtraditional extent of state power and authority over marriage. Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state
responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates tothe Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband
and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each
State. DOMA rejects this long-established precept. The State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. But the Federal Government
uses the state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities. The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty
protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect. New York’s actions were a
proper exercise of its sovereign authority. They reflect both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning
of equality. Pp. 13–20.

However, it is pretty good evidence that this is not a case championing the federal principle when it has already inspired at least one state official in Pennsylvania to refuse to support Pennsylvania’s own Defense Of marriage Act. What we have is surely federal judicial tyranny and not a reigning in of intrusion. That is because the language above is only part of the total majority opinion published in the case. I empathize with those who see same sex marriage as a terribly destructive social development threatening their children but I agree with the US Supreme Court that DOMA should have been struck down because it is a state matter. In practice that would mean the Feds would have to say that we will a lot some percentage of the benefits due to married persons to the states in the name of those same sex couple Sates recognize as married for them to distribute along with of the persons to the extent we see it as in the states purview. We do not accept them as married here (that part of DOMA stands) and we will pay more for those we endorse as married but we recognize the stae defines marriage and helps collect taxes and in this case enforce laws and so some percentage of the funds involved pertain to such authorities of the states and that percentage will be refunded or allowed to the states to redistribute to those they have earmarked. The same sex marriages may be immoral and destructive of good order but they are a domestic regime. Those domestic regimes are in the authority of the States.

However this is not just a blog post or Facebook Note about the Rights of States or about US domestic policies. For me this country exists in a context. In that context a lot of things are going on while we reinvent marriage. On top and around these marital and racial and social matters there is the world. I am writing about those matters as affected by the beheading of the Roman Catholic priest in Syria. Beyond that I am seeing all these topics through the lens of ever more diverse and interesting astronomical news. The galaxy awash in planets, or dotted with them and full of interest and mystery as regards planets affect my view of what is happening on this planet right now. Also in that space related vein I am fascinated with how little data is being publicized from the Mars Curiosity mission as well as being aware of what has been publicized. The last unrelated component of international news is the wait for Princess Catherine Duchess of Cambridge to deliver a child under the new succession laws in the United Kingdom. Also at this same time the largest building in the world opened to public use. It is a shopping mall in Chengdu in China’s Sichuan province. The building is not only large but utilizes innovative and classical design elements and is filled with modern trinketry, luxury and the signs of a rich and diverse economy. Whatever else America is it is a society sharing the world with other societies and I am always aware of that. These things all affect the view I have in this moment of the world in which America does and must function and in which I live. All these varied pressures and influences burble, bubble and boil into the gumbo which is this Facebook Note and Blog Post. This brings me to the next passage from the majority opinion in the case which struck down DOMA:
DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13–26. (
(b) By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,
DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles.
Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state law. DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter
into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.
DOMA’s history of enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than
an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. BLAG’s arguments are just as candid about the congressional purpose. DOMA’s operation in practice confirms this purpose. It frustrates
New York’s objective of eliminating inequality by writing inequality into the entire United States Code.
DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights
and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of
federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. Pp. 20–26. 699 F. 3d 169, affirmed

This is why this case will be used to finally destroy all semblance of law and justice in the United States. Because it sees the US Supreme Court as able to say that the Federal constitution finds in a condition unknown to human history a right guaranteed to all in the US Constitution. Life has been hell here but it just got a little hotter.

So why write this at all? I surely do not know in advance who will read it. I know some people do read these Notes but the exercise is not all that compelling really. Yet I do write, I feel myself thinking about and relating to the writing of Margaret Mitchell who wrote Gone With the Wind. I had read the book when I was young and I think I skipped parts and tried to bridge gaps with memories of the movie and even an article folded in the copy I got from a family library. In other words, I read the book at an age when I left few books unfinished and usually read very intently in discomfort and distraction. I am now at a stage in life where I often am distracted when I read and leave many books three-fourths read but I have read Gone With the Wind again with real interest. I nearly hold the whole story in my head the way I did the novels I loved best in my youth. The facet of the book that strikes me this time is Mitchell’s own sincerity, genuine personal insight into the conditions and earnest desire to state her case. I relate to her inner state in writing the book. I have turmoil of my own to write about. I am influenced by current trends and events as I have tried to describe so far but I am also influenced a great deal by the materials and texts I read. In the last few days I have been replacing a list of books I read which was deleted in the past on Facebook. The Mitchell novel I am writing about today is one of the well over 800 books already on that list. There were 1000 books on the list that was deleted. But some books do not enter properly for whatever reason. In my own struggle to make sense of the rest of my life reading has always played a big part.
I am writing this post, not about a war in the time of a previous generation, but about judicial proceedings and governance in my own time. Not entirely but in large part I am writing about recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Margaret Mitchell was a journalist who wrote a long novel which is a classic and was her only really complete novel where as this is just a post. But she wrote about Scarlett O’Hara as a woman who grew up where the fictional Scarlett grew up. Mitchell was full of complexities and contradictions of mind as regards her sexual life as was Scarlett. Mitchell’s family made money in the lumber business as Atlanta rebuilt after the war and that is what Scarlett doe. Mitchell was trying in a very grand way to tell the truth about her life and conditions around her. This writing is part of my attempt to tell the story of my times and life. I also share some interests and values with Margaret Mitchell. Homosexuality is not an issue of importance in Gone With the Wind but other social issues she faced and wrote about are of interest to me as well. I however, grew up in a world very much influenced not only by the problems Mitchell wrote about but by the writings of Mitchell as well. Her book had to do with people excusing behaviors that have troubled my life. Allowing themselves to see the Wilkes family as useless and archaic and the times as requiring them to be like Scarlett I believe really added to the total of my life’s woes. Yet, compared to the evils she opposed in making the record available to a large readership that cost was small. Without Mitchell only a few would have understood the terrible suffering of the South. Because of her it is a national frame of reference. Today we are in a new social revolution. The U.S. Supreme Court is at the focus of this change.
It has been interesting for me to look at all of the ways in which the country is governed by this least visible branch of the Federal government. That has long been an interest of mine. Although I am not a lawyer I enrolled at Tulane Law School twice and did not die either time and from that point of view my time there was a splendid success. I also was very close to my grandfather who was once Chief justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court. In addition, I have known worked for and am related to many more lawyers. Some might say I am the poor relation in what is in many ways a very large legal family.
In recent years I have written and posted online a Model Constitution of the United States and a Model Constitution of Louisiana. I have been driven to this in response to a number of changes which I see as related to the Obama presidency. However, most of the issues addressed in these documents are issues which have been of interest to me for a long time. This kind of bursting into activity is a pattern which repeats and occurs over and over again in my life. I recently attacked a lawn which I thought had gotten completely out of control. I do not own the lawn and it would not have seemed worthwhile to me to deal with it and the negotiations needed to care for it if it was going to be dealt with by others. Waiting made the task much harder but also made me feel sure I could justify however much trouble might arise because the situation I was addressing was clearly intolerable. My current involvement in opposing the status quo is the same kind of bursting out and deciding whatever the consequences it is worth the risk to try to make a change. Clearly having a legal system and courts of law is and must be very important. Nor do I wish to ignore, nor baselessly undermine the courts. And yet, I am the opposition. I represent something other than the consensus under which American courts operate. Margaret Mitchell represented a point of view which had not much been articulated in her masterful novel and I in my blog and on Facebook represent a particular point of view. What is that point of view as I discuss the state of law in our society?
Marriage itself is only part of the sphere of family. Many family institutions such as differential filiation and inheritance laws, levirate marriage, licensed and placed concubinage and polygamy are already and will remain unlawful in the United States in most places and most times and no court will bring those hurt by these laws any relief. In my Model Constitution of Louisiana I write:
Section One: The Family’s Roots and Nature
Provision One: The Family is an institution shaped and formed by the laws, customs and authorities of human societies in varied ways. However it is not a fictional arrangement, nor one produced by force of law alone. It is rather a vast and vital natural web of meanings associations and possibilities which like a language, game or mathematical system will allow for infinite variations and yet will allow only for one infinite set of variations and will prohibit another infinite set of variations. The Kingdom of the State of Louisiana seeks to keep its legal regimes largely within the infinite set of variations allowed by natural family and does not pretend to authorize or even permit all natural variants which are possible.
This is just a proposal but it makes two points about the law which not everyone agrees with. First, here at least our system of laws should recognize the truth of the natural order although not being its abject slave. Secondly, no system is entirely unchangeable, perfect and comprehensive of all that could be just. It seems to many eyes to split the difference between adhering to the law because it is the law and the citizen’s right to appeal to justice itself.
I am not looking back to some perfect past but writing for many people struggling today. I know many people on this list and who are friends with people on this list are very happy about the Windsor decision which struck down DOMA. I know that many other people on this list and friends with people on this list are either very sad or angry about the same Supreme Court decision. My feelings are a little different in that I am not doing much that will be directly affected and I found the state of things close to unendurable before and I still do find that I have little sense of being able to rationalize much engagement in society. For me the result is mostly that I think law is getting worse as a discourse which shapes my own life.
One of my now reasonably long time correspondents, Lord Norton of Louth who disagrees with me about homosexual marriage and advocates the legalization of marriage between persons of the same sex in the United Kingdom has recently delivered a speech in the House of Lords discussing the relatively poor quality of much legislation passed by the British parliament. Here is an excerpt of some of his speech:
“The problem is not just quantitative but also qualitative. There is not just more law, but more complex law, especially where one is dealing with regulation. This creates problems for Parliament. There is more complex legislation, but there is no commensurate increase in the time and resources available to deal with it. There is a finite number of Members available to sit on committees. There is only so much time available for the different stages of Bills.”
This is both relevant to the legal regimes and court decisions I am discussing here and also a contrast in some ways to what I perceive as our apparent problems. America is I think very much in an intense crisis but it is not so much in a crisis which is acute as regards time and deadlines. I am noy a very free man here and never have been nor am I entirely devoid of freedom. Nor do I enjoy reducing every argument to one about freedom and equality even when the real issues are something else entirely. The Windsor case will simply create more tyrannical nonsense shoved into every cranny and nook of American life while the world rushes on to many other challenges besides forcing us all to approve of the super sameness the courts say we need in our heads and cannot have in any groups of choice.
In contrast to this national judicial dictatorship I wrote in my Model Constitution of Louisiana:
Provision Two: The Family is expressed an embodied in the Domestic Regimes of Marriage, Maitressage and Concubinage as well as in the Association of the Family Association and, in a derivative way, the Kindred and further in the legal recognition of relations between persons who are family members in many aspects of law. The most important of these relations which is recognized in the Kingdom of the State of Louisiana is that relation between mother and child which are so important to all aspects of what is human and to society. Louisiana is a polity that seeks to recognize and improve the inner life of its constituents. It is not content merely to deal with military survival and economic prosperity of a purely material nature. Family is the institution most responsible for developing the inner life of the Citizen-Subjects.
Provision Three: All Citizen-Subjects by force of law belong to a Family in the Kingdom of the State of Louisiana. All Citizen-Subjects also belong to a Family Association by Force of law.
While it may seem as though this is from an alien civilization in another galaxy when contrasted with the Supreme Court it actually is much more rooted in our history than there ideas are or are ever likely to be. The fact that I find myself required , by what I might sometimes call conscience, to resist the direction in which many social trends are moving is simply to say thing are as they have always been. I am simply wearing out and wearing down, the basic framework of my life has not changed. In the course of my life I have pretty much always known that my life would end up on one of three trajectories. First, I might defy extremely long odds and end up at a place in life where I was not likely to end up and be visibly seen to be prospered and happier than was reasonable to expect. Secondly, undertaking many risks in pursuit of long odds I might die young. Thirdly, I might reach middle age in a bad and enduring situation. I have tried fairly hard and long for a life comfortably quiet and decent life, but I always knew I was least likely to achieve that goal. So now, like the vinegar drinkers of Taoism I am in the place where most days seem more like a penalty to be paid than an opportunity to be entered into in life. In that context what do I want to do in terms of writing and commenting on events and trends of this time in which I live. I write in words unusually emotional in a model Constitution in the next passage from the part dealing with family:
Section Two: The Lex Sanguinis, The Domestic Regimes and the Institution of the Family Association

Subsection One: The Nature of the Polity and Its Conditions
Provision One: Louisiana’s Genius and Liabilities
Louisiana in its lands, people and institutions brings to the creation and maintenance of this Kingdom of the State of Louisiana a great and complex heritage which has been alluded to elsewhere in this Constitutional Charter on many occasions. However, except for a very brief period as the Republic of Louisiana between its first membership in the United States and its membership in the Confederate States of America there has been little in its history when the banner of Louisiana itself has risen over an independent polity in the wide world. In many ways the American experience has been a very trying one indeed for the essence of Louisiana. In many ways its conditions in recent decades have been very averse to its natural genius and have rather fostered its liabilities. I has often been toxic to Louisiana’s culture and social fabric to be a small part of the United States of America which has meanwhile been emerging as an increasingly single republic with its disingenuity and very harsh policy towards many peoples and institutions of Louisiana, it endless lies and distortions regarding history and its endless and almost limitless need for nationalist propaganda. Even in this Third Union Louisiana is still very much conditioned by what is possible within a Union that remains largely formed in an image and basis that exists as hostile to this polity and all that it is.
I obviously feel oppressed but that does not mean I am a separatist nor that I believe this polity is perfect. But I will not contribute to the lie that we have no serious problems.
I am not riding some wave of rebellion. I am simply one face of the real political opposition in this often unfree country. It is tiring and sad as a way of life. Ever since the time several years ago when I went from administering over a dozen groups on Facebook to shutting them all down I have been operating in the realm of not being sure whether I would remain on Facebook. That uncertainty continues as I put up this post. I have somewhat conflicting thoughts and mixed feelings about the matter. There is now almost a decade between me and my time in China. Nine years ago next month I went there and I was there less than a year. Since then my Facebook timeline has been a major outlet of expression and means of communication in my life, it has not been the only one but it has been a very important one. In some ways it has been made singular by the lack positive growth in other areas of my life. Yet all the good events in recent years would make a very long list. Whatever else life has to offer it has offered me some good times with family and friends and some worthwhile projects.

I believe extended family offers many supports and checks on the good and bad of nuclear families and is very important. But that does not mean I get on wonderfully with all my extended family – I do not. This past twelve months has been very far from the sort of year one might see in the plans one makes when first becoming an adult. However, it is also true that it has been a year in which I have had a difficult time holding things on any particular course. It seems impossible to believe that a year in which a great number of personal changes for the better occurred would also be a year in which my own since of endurance is most tested. My paternal grandmother had died just a few months before this time last year and I had just recently moved into her home with my parents for a time. I had been working on a number of projects but was most involved in issues and circumstances related to her death.
The year since then has seen a number of changes in my own life. I have certainly lost weight and improved at least some aspects of my physical health and that has occurred at the time of a great deal of other very negative and bad experiences. There has been no exuberance such as might often occur when one loses over fifty pounds and makes some other adjustments in one’s appearance. In many ways this year has been among the least hopeful in my life. It has been a time to reflect on the total horror of much of my own circumstance. It has not been a time to see new goodness emerge in any significant degree. Some of this is rooted in unhappiness related to extended family issues of long standing. But in my Model Constitution of Louisiana I write:
Subsection Two: The Louisiana Families under Law
( I am leaving out of this Post and Note Provisions One through Four because they are long, technical and even farther out of the mainstream of politics)
Provision Five: Privileges of Members Themselves and related Association Privileges
The Members of Family Associations have the following rights and privileges under the law:
1. They may donate up to a third of their income to the Family Association to reduce taxable income without penalty.
2. They may claim as tax deductible expense reasonable minimal expenses related to doing Association business.
3. They may support association members in general as a valid policy reason strongly presumed to be moral despite laws or regulations seeming to forbid such support in a given circumstance.
The Rights of the Association are as follows:
1. They shall pay no more than ten percent tax on their income and the lowest eighty percent shall pay only five percent income tax.
2. Their income shall come after all deductions for due and reasonable expense in providing pre-natal and birth related support, tutoring, partial state rate scholarships available to all members,a family shrine, a registry of family particulars, a stipend for the Head and Mater Familias and elder care as well as any health care clinic in the Imperial Wellness Community Clinic Network and maintaining a duly chartered guard, managing the Liveried aspects of a liveried domestic service.
In writing this Model Constitution and other things I have written, I really am proposing an agenda that would change the way life works in this particular place and might have an influence everywhere. But it is nothing in all its detail compared to what the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) is actually doing now. Wjile I find life growing ever more hellish I am more convinced than ever of the rightness of the major choices of my life and more convinced than ever of the futility of my life’s course. Nuclear marriage and family alone are recognized in our society and open homosexual are excluded from this and thus from everything that is this one thing. Both conservatives and liberals need to see this as the cause of much of our current conflict, but neither will see it at all. I and those like me are merely voices crying in the wilderness. But I am alive and so must deal with each day as best I can. That is the burden, accepted or not, of all the living.
This time in my life is a time when I am more aware than usual of enduring causes and signs of personal isolation. My writing online about current events is both part of the isolation and an exception to the isolation. Like much in my life and history my online presence is paradoxical. As I see the world continually changing around me I have often asked whether this web outreach is a substitute of the wrong kind for doing more of other things I could or ought to be doing. Instead of writing this Note and blog post should I be attending a political rally or writing letters to the editor? Should I try to do something completely other than these things?
Recently I decided to share a link to Xan’s Fans a page in support of a dying child whose family I know. It seemed like a worthwhile use of network that I have built up and maintained on my page. However, I consider that despite such occasional opportunities it is likely to be getting near the very end of my time on Facebook unless any number of things would change that are not likely to change. While I enjoy staying in touch with people it does not offset the fact that I am not going to continue in what does not sustain me sufficiently and so I want to write a few things before I begin signing off here. This is a time to consider a number of themes from my life in recent years. It is also time to relate those themes to the current condition of society on which I have often commented. I am not likely to ever remarry. However, I was married quite a while and had a good view of what values form American marriage today. In contrast to those I wrote this language in my Model Constitution of Louisiana:
Section Three: Women and Family in the Kingdom of the State of Louisiana
Subsection One: Section Preamble
Women are not the same as men but both are human, capable of being servile residents, Citizen-Subjects, Peer-Electors and Sovereign Monarchs although in every case they are somewhat distinguished from one another. The Policy of the Kingdom of the State of Louisiana regarding women is definitely a policy which discriminates and makes a set of differences. Many of these appear at the level of law which less august than the Constitution and parts of the Constitutional framework appear in other places than this article on Family. However, the enumerated Provisions of this Section form the main body of the transformative policy regarding women and family in the Kingdom of the State of Louisiana.
While it is impossible to tell from these words what exactly I propose it is clear that my values are not those of the Supreme Court. The society I envision and the relationships in it are entirely different than the vision imposed by the heavily armed super spy state in which I live. So I am better off single here in hell.

It is time for me take an inventory of my own life and involvement in those things which do involve me in any way. It is a truth of my life that I have always lived largely in my own mind and judged by my own conscience despite living out among people, seeking advice and studying various systems of morality with preference given to Christian morality. I have not been strongly and directly involved in the same sex marriage debate here in this country. However, I have been directly conversant with those debating the issue abroad. In addition I have been writing model constitutions in recent years which address many of my concerns about the questions of homosexual marriage.
Let me just say that I am not unsympathetic to the rejoicing of homosexual and Lesbian people who have lived in homosexual unions for a long time in this society of isolation and only marriage contracts into which they could not enter. Whatever moral issues there are it is also true they have been support and stay to others in a society that did not sustain them and who have in some cases reared children with a beloved of the same sex. Windsor who brought this action in court did not rear children with her partner. The DOMA case involved benefits and estate taxes. She is just asking for the tax breaks of a married couple. I know that many heterosexual homes are hells on earth. I have seen a great deal of horror and misery in heterosexual homes. Yet, I feel no need to change my mind about the idea that marriage ought to be contracted between a man and a woman only. Although I feel tired and in pain as I write this note I know that not everything in America is unappealing to me and many would say that I have had a pretty good life. So even in that regard I must question whether I have enough to complain about.

So thing will get much worse in many ways in all likelihood and the DOMA case is just a part of the disintegration. That is my view as of here and now.

2 responses to “Same Sex Marriage, America’s Judiciary, Geopolitics & My Own Life

  1. Pingback: American Totalitarianism Outlined and Evaluated | Franksummers3ba's Blog

  2. Pingback: Gay Marriage Ruling is Made by Supreme Court of the United States | Franksummers3ba's Blog

Thank you for commenting if your comment does not appear in five days contact me by e-mail or Twitter

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s