Rachel Maddow: Pride and the LGBT Landscape

In her contribution to the ACLU's online symposium in celebration of LGBT Pride, Rachel Maddow, Air America host and MSNBC commentator, talked to Chris Hampton, Public Education Associate for the ACLU's LGBT Project.

Happy Pride! What accomplishments do you think the LGBT community should be most proud of this year?

So far the state where I grew up (California) and the state where I live (Massachusetts) and the state where I work most of the time (New York) have legalized, legalized, and agreed-to-recognize-other-states’ same-sex-marriages, respectively. I am accepting applications now from other states that want me to relocate, since apparently I am to second-class gay citizenship what Saint Patrick was to snakes.

What are some of the issues your listeners tell you are most impacting the lives of LGBT people right now?

LGBT people that I hear from are mad about the same things as everyone — the war, the Constitution, gas prices, health care. We’re just also mad that Democrats think we’re politically disposable.

Marriages for lesbian and gay couples in California start this week, although that state now faces a ballot initiative that may take it all away. You live in Massachusetts, where couples have had that right for four years now. What would you tell people in California they should do to hold on to that victory?

The anti-gay-marriage movement in California, as it was in Massachusetts, is ideologically splintered, poorly organized, unpopular, inexperienced, intellectually incoherent and therefore fundamentally vulnerable. But they won’t go away on their own. Oppose them directly. Confront their message, their tactics, and their organization — they’re utterly beatable, but they can’t (and shouldn’t) be ignored.

Add a comment (7)
Read the Terms of Use

Bent Alaska

Rachel - how would you like to spend the summer living in Alaska? Or maybe several summers - although we don't have animal snakes, we do have plenty of the human kind!

Jacq

Hi Rachel!
How's about relocating to Texas? Just curious here.
Would you accept the position of moderator on Meet The Press if it were offered?

Vexxed

Just writing to say I think you're one of the most entertaining witty commentators on the airwaves. You are so on-target I have to take notes and steal your lines for the watercooler :)

From an old straight white "hippie" engineer 50 yr old guy who grew up with the idea that "Star Trek" diversity is just the obvious best course based on actual experience.

"Marriage" is something the State has no business regulating other than to maintain records. The only certificate the state has any business issuing is a civil union record -- for *any* couple, threesome, whatever. The certificate should only be a legal instrument for defining inheritance, life-decisions, responsibilities, and related functions.

Religions or secularists can be as wacky as they'd like in defining marriage (as long as they aren't committing violence over it) but the state and federal government clearly oversteps its bounds in even presuming to define anything other than partnerships of civil or business nature.

Anyway, that's been my counter-argument to the anti-gay marriage zealots -- interestingly it kind of stops them in their tracks because I'm advocating separation of state matters from religious matters.

AmericanDoctrine

Interracial marriage vs Gay and/or Lesbian Marriage
7/2/2008 9:59 pm
Despite the public opposition to interracial marriage,
in 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first
state high court to declare a ban on interracial marriage
unconstitutional. In Perez v. Sharp [1948] 32 Cal. 2d 711,
the Court stated that:

A member of any of these races may find himself
barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person
to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of
worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable
as trains.

The decision was controversial, courageous and correct.
At that time, 38 states still forbade interracial marriage,
and 6 did so by state constitutional provision.

19 years later in 1967 the Supreme Court of the United States
followed the lead of the California Supreme Court case
and changed history Mildred Loving (a woman of African
and Native American descent) and her white husband, Richard
Perry Loving were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
They both left Virginia (to evade the Racial Integrity
Act) to the District of Columbia to marry and then returned
to Virgina. Upon their return to Virginia they were charged
with a felony under a Virginia state law banning marriages
between any white person and any non-white person (violation
of the ban).

On June 12, 1967 the United States Supreme Court upheld
their right to marry in the landmark case of Loving et ux
v Virginia [338 U.S. 1]. The ruling struck down laws banning
racially mixed marriages in at least 17 states.

The parallels between the struggle for
the freedom to marry then, and the struggle for gay and lesbian
couples today is illustrated in the California Supreme
Court when on May 18, 2008 struck down the state's ban
on same-sex marriage, saying sexual orientation, like
race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate
basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
The court in a 4 to 3 decision extended to sexual
orientation the same broad protections against bias previously
saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went
further than any other state high court's. In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that
"responsibly to care for and raise children does
not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance
and significance of the fundamental constitutional right
to form a family relationship, the California Constitution
properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil
right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual,
and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples, "
Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

Question 1: Will the U.S. Supreme Court eventually follow the lead
of the California Supreme Court with a decision that strikes
down any state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying
sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not
constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold
legal rights."

Question 2: Do you agree with the California Supreme Court Decision?
If not why not?
the initial premise of marriage, was about building family,
which included at it's core, the ability to "procreate"..
as during that phase and stage of it's initiation,
"divorce was an unacceptable premise".. and
over time, it was allowed but not embraced.. which goes
back to the premise of marriage being the coupling of two
with the inherent intent and potential to procreate and
become what is family.

Before Confucius, people mated as they felt the desire
to do so, and they hooked up in any combination that suited
their fancy.. he put forth.. "the ethical system of Confucianism. He
placed emphasis on moral order and observance of the established
patriarchal family and social relationships of authority,
obedience, and mutual respect. His emphasis
on tradition and ethics attracted a growing number
of pupils during his lifetime.

prior to that, men were hooking up men, women were hooking
up women and men and women hooking each other up..

but As people adopted the system of Confucianism, they
did so with the belief that the family structure was the
foundation of the strength of a society.. and thus
the base premise of Taoism.. which precede confusinism..
was .. These early Taoist reject numerous basic assumptions
of Confucianism, embracing instead values based on
nature, perspectivalism, and spontaneity. They
express skepticism of conventional moralities and Mozi's
Utilitarian or Mencius' benevolence based revisions..
Taoist sexual practices (literally "Joining Energy"
or "The Joining of the Essences", is the way
some Taoists practised sex. Practitioners believed
that by performing these sexual arts, one could stay in
good health, and eventually attain immortality.

so as a society.. we are repeating what was, with the adoption
and intergration of what came next.. into a world where
both co-exist..

consigliore replies on 7/3/2008 12:38 pm:
Touch:

I appreciate and it is very interesting to learn about the difference between Confucianism and Taoism but I respectfully submit that this articel is not about sex or religious doctrine.

You did not answer any of the questions posed!

Namaste

it does not matter about what I agree to or do not agree to
in the matter because the people will do what they do, legally
bonded of without legal bonding.. but .. to understand
the nature of what is and what constitutes the philosophy
of what is marriage is more an element to be investigated..
when that's in a context, then one can choose what morality
they want to attach or not attach to it.. so the response
is within what I wrote, if you care to see it within..

one sense in this site, people hate the mention of religion,
but marriage is performed by a religious doctrine as much
as a civil union in regard to the state references and application..
so it's got two dimension within it.. now the Courts
may say that it's a go, but there will be religions that
will say, it's no go, regardless of what the state says
is legal or illegal with regards to it..

you question is one more intent to evoke a moralistic stand,
and yet it addresses both the state stand of legality, and
you inquire as to what does the individual think... and
that is a matter than can be relative situationally to what
state one lives in as well as what religion one follows,
and they two don't have to be in accord and they don't
have to be our of accord.

and in a society that deal with political correctness as
an objective in social enviornment, where one likes or
dislikes it, they will accord themselves in relation to
social interactions, in what manner they feel is civil
for them to do in a given setting, situation and company
of the moment..

I think this... if it's allowed and is the process,
then multiple wives should be equally so, and those who
want to be a multiple husband can do that too.

if the premise you state is what's applicable.. such
as you state.

"saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does
not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold
legal rights." "

they should have gone a step further if they believe that,
and say, how many, should not be a legitimate basis upon
which to deny or withhold legal rights.. so it's addressed
on a premise of legality, not religious philosophy..

but the Constitution say, each individual has the right,
to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness..

and I'd say.. then if so and as so, then maybe my happiness
is having multiple wives, ... and I should have too, protected
rights to do so.

so they should stop trying to persecute polygamist.. when
all parties agree to the engagement of such... because
now the religion is usurping the state, and the constitution,
but then the constitution, also say's freed of religion,
but then tries to interject legality in the middle of it,
which is what forbade gay marriage, and forbade pologymist
relations and marriages.. so at best.. it's a case
of "collusion" that brings a confounding set
of conflicting principals.. that should negate each other,
and abide by the constitution, which is the basic inalienable
rights, to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
and the right to religious freedom... then If I chose to
be Mormon which adopt multiple wives.. then I should be
free to do so and have so... if that's my happiness and
my religious doctrines aspired to philosophy within the
religious belief..

consigliore replies on 7/4/2008 12:49 am:
Touch... I think I understand a little more where you were going with your previous response. Thank you for your additional response.

My point was that if you study Constitutional Law, like I have, you will note that the U.S. Supreme Court will often reach the same conclusion, on a particular legal concept, that the California Supreme Court already decided. In other words the California Supreme Court and other state Court's are often out in front of the curve.

They were the first court to state that a ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Certainly there are states that will always disagree with certain laws that involve moral judgments. Like abortion. Right now the law of the United States is that a woman has "The Right of Choice" whether to have an abortion or not. [Roe v Wade]; however, if the U. S. Supreme Court overturns that decision and gives that decision back to the states there will be many states that ban abortion and others that will not. Right now it is viewed as a fundamental right of a woman to choose and prevents governmental intrusion into that decision.

I am sure that if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn Loving v Virginia that many states would return to banning interracial marriage on religious grounds.

That is exactly why we have a United States Supreme Court because they are the supreme law of the land.

I am not seeking people to give a moral judgment on whether gay or lesbian marriage is moral or immoral. That is not the question.

The question is should sexual orientation [as a class like race and gender] be provided the same rights under the Constitution. Some will say yes and some will say no. I am simply interested in knowing peoples thoughts on if they say no....why they say no. If you look throughout history there have been laws banning African American people from voting, banning a woman's right to vote, women used to be considered as chattels. African American people were not allowed to own property, Native American Indians were denied the right to own property or vote, the list is endless of bad laws that have been overturned as society has evolved and the Constitution interpreted.

Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court realized that all these laws violated fundamental constitutional rights and they were overturned.

The "Law" in America is not static but in a constant state of flux. Tort law especially has evolved. I agree with your contention that if the U. S. Supreme Court were to allow gay or lesbian marriage then they should also allow a man to have more than one wife, [polygamy] and a wife to have more than one husband [polyandry], using the same reasoning. Some people simply cannot get past their religious or moral objections to view the issue clearly or rationally.

I must respectfully correct you on one small issue. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [Mormon's-often referred to as LDS] used to engage in Polygamy but outlawed polygamy to become a state.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [an offshoot of the LDS church]- [FLDS] still engage in that practice. I know because I am surrounded by LDS and FLDS in Utah. I have also written extensively about this subject which I will not bore you with now. A very large percentage of civilizations throughout the world still engage in polygamy and a few cultures still engage in polyandry.

The overwhelming majority of the the animal kingdoms still utilize a system of having two or more mates, either simultaneously or successively to preserve their species.

You state; religion is usurping the state...I totally agree. That is why the Framers of the Constitution wrote into the Constitution the separation of church and state! Separation of church and state is the political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other. Quite a few of religious fanatics refuse to understand or accept that doctrine. Oh well...I think there are still people that think the world is flat too!

The issue is should people, of the same sex, have the same right to raise a family together and be given the legal status as married people or should they be treated differently [as they did with the Dred Scot Laws]. In the Dred Scot decision court court addressed this question:

Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizen?

Dred Scott was born a slave and had been taken by his master, an army surgeon, into the free portion of the Louisiana territory. Upon his master's death, Scott argued that he was entitled to freedom. He contended that since slavery was outlawed in the free territory, he had become a free man there, and "once free, always free." The argument was rejected by a Missouri court, but Scott and his white supporters managed to take this case into higher federal court, where the issue simply became whether a slave had a legal right to even sue in a federal court. So the first question the Supreme Court had to decide was whether it had jurisdiction to rule over this case. If Scott had standing - that is, a legal right - then the Court had jurisdiction, and the justices could go on to decide the merits of his claim. But if, as a slave, Scott did not have standing, then the Court could dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court ruled that Scott, a slave, could not achieve U.S. citizenship and therefore could not exercise the privilege of a free citizen to sue in federal courts. That should have been the end of the case, but then Chief Justice Taney and the other southern sympathizers on the Court hoped that a definitive ruling would settle the issue of slavery in the territories once and for all. They therefore continued on to rule that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional since Congress could not forbid citizens from taking their property, i.e., slaves, into any territory owned by the United States. A slave, Taney ruled, was property, nothing more, and could never be a citizen.

This was a terrible decision and ultimately led to the Civil War. The Dred Scot Laws was rightfully overturned.

During the Inquisition if you did not become a Catholic you were put to death. All sorts of "Religions" has been the cause of more death and murder to mankind than any other dogma.

But my question did not address religion; however, I am sure there are many people who object to same sex marriage, as they did to interracial marriage on religious grounds.

I appreciate your response and I now understand where you were coming from in your first response but I got you to focus on the issue a little closer. I do not think many people will actually leave a comment on this article because it is such a hot button issue.

Most people do not even understand the issue and would rather engage in irrational emotional responses rather than try to understand the issue and the law and the reasoning behind the Court's decision.

It does not matter which side a person comes down on. My intent was to get people to understand the reasoning behind the Court's decision and look at it from a historical perspective.

I would be very surprised indeed if the so called "ballot initiative" overturns the California Supreme Court decision. Quite the contrary I believe that many states will now look to the California Supreme Court Decision to examine their own Constitution [and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court] will examine the U.S. Constitution and reach the same decision.

So the the real question is whether the U.S. Supreme Court will reach that same decision like they did concerning interracial marriage 19 years after the California Supreme Court realized and granted those rights to those individuals! Namaste

I must respectfully correct you on one small issue. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [Mormon's-often referred to as LDS] used to engage in Polygamy but outlawed polygamy to become a state.
Interesting comment, "TO BECOME".. the infusion of religious doctrine, which generally digresses into 'MOB MENTALITY DRIVEN ACTS AND ACTS, as ws recently witnessed in the Texas case of the abduction of the people from the ranch, I say abduction, because it was driven by mob mentality, that tried to contort the law, thru public opinion and moral subjugations of one group by another, and the emotional media drama..
this same premise of motility is what, continues to confound America, it is the same that drove the nation, not to just have a mob mentality, driven and rooted in bias and prejudices, that usurped the constitution and made it a process of multiple illegalities, to satisfy the mindset of a mod driven divisive disregard for the life and liberty of individuals, and that lead to a series of illegal laws, that summed up to be termed, the Jim Crow doctrines as adopted by a majority of the social enviornment, and thus sought to support and back their emotional and segregation biases, by invoking religious mis-interpretations into the mass of the claiming such as base and standards of social process.
Mob mentality of religious influenced morality has been a continual tool used, to contort the basis of the constitution and it's directive principals. such madness runs so deep, that people have and continue to find ways to influence the localized laws within States, that continually the Supreme court has to address the matter, and set precedence and make law statures against the erosion of the base principle afforded the citizens in the doctrine itself.
I would defer, to the matter of other civilizations prior to : of which I just wrote reference, in the , the comment, about Taoist and Confucianism, and the acts and actions of individuals in and prior to one becoming to dominate the landscape over the other, then we can go across continent, to the Roman Empire, when the gender secular activities of sex and homosexuality, was flourishing within their enviornment, and that, then later transferred over to the Grecian State, and the acts and facts of society too stands, to state a loss of their moral compass of human regard, thru their pursuits of pleasure, which, in parts, negated and dominated over the motive of the creationist principal of procreational society. and that is the points that these societies, adopted the transition into the The Christian doctrines, which placed, "pro-creational engagment, and the structure of family" above the randomness in pursuits of pleasure and the engagments of pleasure, and such was then born, codes, moral formats and guidelines of a society that transition to favor, Pro creationist as the way of life for man, that afforded many elements of a more stable society, and protection of it's young and the unity of man and woman.. which exist, within this sphere, the engagment of marriage as a both legal and religious bonding of man and woman, as the foundation of morality, social codes of civil conduct, and sexual engagments, declared just and right, in support of this codes of morality and social civilty, .. there-fore the institution of marriages, in the embrace of a codes of moral and civil conduct, that sough to stamp out the engagments of sexual unity, and the choices of mating parter, to be at base, suitable and designated for procreational purposes to support the moral and civil codes of the base of what was deemed to constitute a civil and moral set of laws and guidelines, for the prospering and stability of a society..
so the matter of marriage goes far deeper into the fabric of both morality and law, religion and state, and is not easily left to vague interpretations.. nor simple encroachments upon and unto the institution of what is marriage, and that leads into what is the civil codes of the constitution of what is a state, before it addresses the constitutional rights of man within what is state... therefore for the State to remain as the organized format of the civil structure, the issue of the constitution of what is a State stands supreme over what is the constitution of the citizen within the state. and that goes to the basis of man, in order to maintain the civility of what what is a State, which is of men, must accord itself to the moral codes that constitute the doctrines of the creation of State, for many to live in the civil nature of such, and remain with the codes which create the foundations of being a state. As being a state thus, setting laws and guidelines, principals and adopting a codes of moral conduct, to remain being a state, which prides itself upon the stability that keeps it a state.. and thru such, the marriage for the sake of anything but a procreational union, would not be of legal realm to support the base elements of what constitutes being and remains a state, built upon the basis of being supported by the stability of it's procreational premise.. therefore, if it is viewed within a caption of context, it can be overturned.. at the Supreme Court Level. Man has to be careful, of when how, and what he commands as law, based on what he considers the union of being a State. and what constitutes the stability of unity in the principals set forth, that are at the basis of creation of State.
the matter is quite deeper than an emotional summation or a matter of appealing unto a group, but more a matter of regard to the premise of what constitutes being and the doctrines that support the creation of State.
therefore.. pls. refer back to the beginning point.. of very core depth of focus.. "To Become" a State..
and thus.. it goes to what is the elements that constitute remaining a State, with accord to the elements that are at the core of what constitutes the creation of "A State".
it transcends, the fallacies of faction about race and ethnicity, but does not make allowance for the confusion of gender roles, which is at the core of what is the premise built upon for the creation of State, based on the pro creationist principal.
therefore, in the premise of a nation, created and designed under the premise of being a Christian nation, of which is what this Nation and it's creations has root premise.. then .. marriage is a sanctuary of the pro-creationist.. doctrine..
and is an institution for the procreational engagment of man and woman.
and individuals, are afforded the rights of libery and justice and the pursuit of happiness.. within the civil and moral codes of what is the creation of a state, within the living within a State, under the doctrines that support what remains a state, based on it's creations principal premise, as being a pro creationist, State.. then the rights of the individual .. become to be rights within the land and laws of what is a state, and the support of what is it's premise of creation of being a state.. which is .. a pro creationist.. civil community, by the morals and doctrines of the premise of it's creation..
therefore, the illegality of laws that precluded man and woman from uniting based on race and ethnicity, is unconstitutional as aspiring and being a part of what is the State, but the state and it's principals of founding, which is pro creationist, would then state, that it is unconstitutional for same gender marriage, as it is against the premise of the principal of it's constitution of what a state's creation is founded, which is in the principal of pro creationist doctrines,. as the founding basis of being a State.

________________________________________________________________

quote Comptessa:
________________________________________
Question 2: Do you agree with the California Supreme Court Decision? If not why not?

YES, I agree that there should be freedom of choice.

Racial discrimination has gone on for too long in the United States, and has led to too many blood-sheds.

America prides itself for freedom of speech and for equal rights. But when one looks deep down into it, the picture displays a different view.

Many Americans need to learn to get out of their box and take off their blinkers in order to see what the world is all about.

just my simple view
________________________________________
I would ask, that you look deeper...
and inqure into what is .. State.. and what is the constitutional doctrinces that constitute what is State, and you may find that the State was created on the constitution of first moral doctrinces, based on a Christian premise, that is thus based upon a pro-creationist foundation, and within therein , you find there the core of the matter, goes far beyond the emotional likes and dislikes of the individual, and addressed first the premise of what is State, and then How is State, and you will find within the core of such.. the basis of , Pro creationisms constitution of societal structure, of being what is a State.

Consigliore

Rachel Maddow...You are a pleasure to listen to and a pleasure to watch on television. I enjoy listening to your news commentary blended together with the unique humor you so gracefully deliver.

I just discovered that someone has posted a portion of one of my commentaries entitled "Interracial Marriage vs Gay and/or Lesbian Marriage" on this blog. (Look above)

Specifically, I attempted to draw similarities with the California Supreme Court decision to allow interracial marriage with the subsequent decision (reaching the same conclusion) by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the same issue (19 years later).

I do not know whether I will see it in my lifetime; however, I beleive that an individuals sexual orientation should be granted the same Constitutional protections as "gender", "race" and "ethnicity" is protected as a "class"... as it relates to marriage.

Unfortunately, the individual who posted my comments have mixed their commentary with mine. I beleive I know who this individual is and have no problem with him posting my comments. My only wish and/or desire would be that he would have separated his comments from mine.

The individual is well intentioned and I have engaged in a robust dialogue on a variety of subjects with him; however, his discussion of the issue should have been set forth an identifiable as their own. (No ill will intended Touch....)

To recap....I think you are TERRIFIC! Keep up the great work. Hold their proverbial feet to the fire and NEVER GIVE UP! Is working with Keith as fun as it looks? You Go Girl!

Consigliore

Who is the moderator of this blog?

Consigliore

The paragraphs and/or comment(s) below were posted by some other person who did not post the article entitled Interracial marriage vs Gay and/or Lesbian Marriage". That article was posted by me on 7/2/2008 @ 9:59 pm on the AFF network. It is not part of my article and makes no sense whatsoever.

[Their comment starts with the following words].........unfortunately it is pure and unadulterated gobbledygook!

Interesting comment, “TO BECOME”.. the infusion of religious doctrine, which generally digresses into ‘MOB MENTALITY DRIVEN ACTS AND ACTS, as ws recently witnessed in the Texas case of the abduction of the people from the ranch, I say abduction, because it was driven by mob mentality, that tried to contort the law, thru public opinion and moral subjugations of one group by another, and the emotional media drama..
this same premise of motility is what, continues to confound America, it is the same that drove the nation, not to just have a mob mentality, driven and rooted in bias and prejudices, that usurped the constitution and made it a process of multiple illegalities, to satisfy the mindset of a mod driven divisive disregard for the life and liberty of individuals, and that lead to a series of illegal laws, that summed up to be termed, the Jim Crow doctrines as adopted by a majority of the social enviornment, and thus sought to support and back their emotional and segregation biases, by invoking religious mis-interpretations into the mass of the claiming such as base and standards of social process.
Mob mentality of religious influenced morality has been a continual tool used, to contort the basis of the constitution and it’s directive principals. such madness runs so deep, that people have and continue to find ways to influence the localized laws within States, that continually the Supreme court has to address the matter, and set precedence and make law statures against the erosion of the base principle afforded the citizens in the doctrine itself.
I would defer, to the matter of other civilizations prior to : of which I just wrote reference, in the , the comment, about Taoist and Confucianism, and the acts and actions of individuals in and prior to one becoming to dominate the landscape over the other, then we can go across continent, to the Roman Empire, when the gender secular activities of sex and homosexuality, was flourishing within their enviornment, and that, then later transferred over to the Grecian State, and the acts and facts of society too stands, to state a loss of their moral compass of human regard, thru their pursuits of pleasure, which, in parts, negated and dominated over the motive of the creationist principal of procreational society. and that is the points that these societies, adopted the transition into the The Christian doctrines, which placed, “pro-creational engagment, and the structure of family” above the randomness in pursuits of pleasure and the engagments of pleasure, and such was then born, codes, moral formats and guidelines of a society that transition to favor, Pro creationist as the way of life for man, that afforded many elements of a more stable society, and protection of it’s young and the unity of man and woman.. which exist, within this sphere, the engagment of marriage as a both legal and religious bonding of man and woman, as the foundation of morality, social codes of civil conduct, and sexual engagments, declared just and right, in support of this codes of morality and social civilty, .. there-fore the institution of marriages, in the embrace of a codes of moral and civil conduct, that sough to stamp out the engagments of sexual unity, and the choices of mating parter, to be at base, suitable and designated for procreational purposes to support the moral and civil codes of the base of what was deemed to constitute a civil and moral set of laws and guidelines, for the prospering and stability of a society..
so the matter of marriage goes far deeper into the fabric of both morality and law, religion and state, and is not easily left to vague interpretations.. nor simple encroachments upon and unto the institution of what is marriage, and that leads into what is the civil codes of the constitution of what is a state, before it addresses the constitutional rights of man within what is state… therefore for the State to remain as the organized format of the civil structure, the issue of the constitution of what is a State stands supreme over what is the constitution of the citizen within the state. and that goes to the basis of man, in order to maintain the civility of what what is a State, which is of men, must accord itself to the moral codes that constitute the doctrines of the creation of State, for many to live in the civil nature of such, and remain with the codes which create the foundations of being a state. As being a state thus, setting laws and guidelines, principals and adopting a codes of moral conduct, to remain being a state, which prides itself upon the stability that keeps it a state.. and thru such, the marriage for the sake of anything but a procreational union, would not be of legal realm to support the base elements of what constitutes being and remains a state, built upon the basis of being supported by the stability of it’s procreational premise.. therefore, if it is viewed within a caption of context, it can be overturned.. at the Supreme Court Level. Man has to be careful, of when how, and what he commands as law, based on what he considers the union of being a State. and what constitutes the stability of unity in the principals set forth, that are at the basis of creation of State.
the matter is quite deeper than an emotional summation or a matter of appealing unto a group, but more a matter of regard to the premise of what constitutes being and the doctrines that support the creation of State.
therefore.. pls. refer back to the beginning point.. of very core depth of focus.. “To Become” a State..
and thus.. it goes to what is the elements that constitute remaining a State, with accord to the elements that are at the core of what constitutes the creation of “A State”.
it transcends, the fallacies of faction about race and ethnicity, but does not make allowance for the confusion of gender roles, which is at the core of what is the premise built upon for the creation of State, based on the pro creationist principal.
therefore, in the premise of a nation, created and designed under the premise of being a Christian nation, of which is what this Nation and it’s creations has root premise.. then .. marriage is a sanctuary of the pro-creationist.. doctrine..
and is an institution for the procreational engagment of man and woman.
and individuals, are afforded the rights of libery and justice and the pursuit of happiness.. within the civil and moral codes of what is the creation of a state, within the living within a State, under the doctrines that support what remains a state, based on it’s creations principal premise, as being a pro creationist, State.. then the rights of the individual .. become to be rights within the land and laws of what is a state, and the support of what is it’s premise of creation of being a state.. which is .. a pro creationist.. civil community, by the morals and doctrines of the premise of it’s creation..
therefore, the illegality of laws that precluded man and woman from uniting based on race and ethnicity, is unconstitutional as aspiring and being a part of what is the State, but the state and it’s principals of founding, which is pro creationist, would then state, that it is unconstitutional for same gender marriage, as it is against the premise of the principal of it’s constitution of what a state’s creation is founded, which is in the principal of pro creationist doctrines,. as the founding basis of being a State.

Sign Up for Breaking News