It appears now the sixth state in the nation has "gone green," in passing legislation with respect to gay marriage in the United States with New Hampshire now joining the pack in the "liberal" and blue New England states.

New Hampshire's Governor has cowtowed apparently to the lawyers and Bar Association lobby (largest lobbying group by far at both the federal and state levels in some capacity or another), Chamber of Comerce, gay rights activists and New Hampshire, Inc.'s desire for more state revenue by passing into "law" several bills now affording gay couples the supposed "rights" that are guaranteed under the New Hampshire Constitution to traditional two sex couples with respect to "marriage", rather than prior laws with regard to domestic civil unions.

No matter that the institution of marriage is actual governed under the common civil law as set forth in the Magna Carta and under the "natural" law in which the founders created this great nation over 200 years ago.  It appears the U.S. Constitution also is not one in which the New Hampshire state government gives any credence, in addition to the federal government at this point in any manner whatsoever.

An article written by a writer with the the Baptist Press announcing the new legislation indicated that the citizens of New Hampshire have really no recourse to this action other than voting those members of the legislature and the governor out of office next election, rather than as the citizens of California had in initiating a state constitutional amendment after an off the wall California Supreme Court ruling also affording such "rights" in California.

The writer stated that the New Hampshire Constitution has no such provisions.

This writer would disagree.  In a government of the people, and since this really is a federal matter and "institution" that is involved here there are several courses the citizens of New Hampshire can take with respect to this legislation - either filing a lawsuit in the federal courts with respect to the common law upon which marriage is based and the founders intent with respect to those "natural law" provisions, or initiate their own Constitutional amendment as California did, since there is no need to provide in codified law a "right" for such an undertaking within any states constitution. 

It is an "assumed right," and also common law right in any government specifically declared "of the people, by the people, for the people," as the U.S. Constitution and founding documents so state, and also clearly "codified" in the provisions contained within the 9th Amendment.   And also volumes of writings of the founders on just what "unalienable" rights were (as contained in the Bill of Rights), as "endowed by the Creator." 

I think the Creator's views are also pretty well documented on such an issue.

And those new "laws" have yet to also be placed before a jury for evaluation as to also their applicability, since juries also in this nation have the right to not only review the facts in any case before them, but also whether or not the "law" is Constitutional, or applicable in the matter placed before them.  This is what is known as "jury nullification."

So don't lose hope, citizens of New Hampshire that support traditional marriage and "natural law."

It appears this was more of a "job stimulus" for the legal profession and Chamber of Commerce members in the wedding industries and resorts  in New Hampshire as has been the "jobs and the economy" excuse for literally thousands of unconstitutional statutes throughut the nation for this legislation and these judicial "opinions" as with most of the other states.  Think of all that tax revenue the states will also gain now in violating the Constitution and the sums for all those "license" fees.

And the hefty sums that will be paid to those New Hampshire domestic relations attorneys for some of those divorces.

And how much more taxes the state citizens will be required to pay to give even more jobs to the legal industry in the form of the judges that will be needed for some of those "divorces."

At a time when the economy in most states throughout the nation is now in the toilet, the state legislators and governors  really are getting on the "gay marriage bandwagon" in order to help pay their future salaries and their future campaign coffers most of all, it appears, and in times such as these apparently the true Rule of Law can be suspended at will in the interests of "state benefits and interests."

Look for that excuse to be brought up if this ever gets to the Supreme Court, along with the "equal protection under the law" garbage - since there is absolutely no "protection" in marriage for either party anymore in traditional marriage due to community property laws, and no fault divorce, and prior to state involvement on any level, simply recording such "contracts" in the country recorder's office or courthouse records was the "common law" procedure, especially since now there are even laws that have to do with people who die intestate.

And in Louisiana and quite a few other states, it isn't the spouse who automatically inherits all separately owned property at all due to the availability of  "joint ownership" designations now within most contracts for home, auto and other purchases,  it is actually the "legal" children of the decedent.  And adoption papers secure those rights for gay domestic unions involving children since they cannot "procreate" naturally without medical intervention in some form or another, outside adoption.

Most other civil "rights" in marriage now can be satisfied with simple powers of attorneys, wills and joint ownership contracts which cost nothing to prepare and the forms for which can be obtained at your local bookstore.

"Natural law" is one which is not recognized now in New Hampshire, one of those thirteen original colonies.

And Madison is spinning right about now.

http://townhall.com/news/religion/2009/06/03/nh_6th_state_to_legalize_gay_marriage
 

As could be expected in the United States of America, a country with more lawyers in this nation than all of Europe and many other nations combined, the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding the Proposition 8 initiative passed by the residents of the State of California is now going to be challenged by two members of the American Bar Association in a "bipartisan" partnership.

And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?

The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.

Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.

Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation.  All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions.  And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."

And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.

So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.

After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.

As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.

If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parent dependents to also provided for.

Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which all our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.

And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted?  It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it? 

Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?

And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense?  Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent.

So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison

In a unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling granting civil unions for gay couples in the state citing the "equal protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution as their basis. In addition, in writing for the Court it wrote:

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective..."

And further,

Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

To this writer, this is just simply another example of a "political" rendering by an activist court acting outside the restraints of their Constitutional duties of office. Per Madison's quote above, any and all decisions reached by the Court's in any state in this nation must be considered with the intent of the founders also in mind above all else, otherwise we do not have Constitutional government, we have a "bastardized" form of it.

Insofar as the position that this is an "equal rights" issue, and that the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution would apply in such a case, I would also take exception. The "equal rights" and "unalienable" rights the founder's were referring to were those given to citizens by the Creator, a Creator which they acknowledged, although some were not Christians, merely deists - believers in God.

Marriage also as an institution "legally" is defined according to the common law of England at the time of its signing and as preceded by the Magna Carta.

The "freedom" to marry anyone and everyone you wish was not one of those they were referring to. Utah was deemed inadmissible as a state unless and until it discontinued its historic practice of plural marriage for just such reasons due to its Mormon roots. What's next? The gays acknowledge the "unconstitutional" issue of plural marriage, but not basic biology and nature's law in simply this issue?

God actually has already spoken on this issue, and gays were in existence at the time the Constitution was signed. The gay population has existed since Rome and biblical times, and even the Romans - a pagan nation - did not afford marriage rights to gay couples. The slavery issue was fundamentally different, and was a matter of contention from the time of the original Constitutional Convention. Slaves were considered "property" instead of "people."

As such an entirely different matter, and the civil rights movement of the 60's had to do with equal rights in the workplace and was not a gender issue, but a racial issue affecting both sexes equally due to hiring practices and other discriminatory issues and leftover biases after the Civil War era.

As far as "equal protection," Iowa is a no-fault divorce state. So there is no "equal protection" in any manner whatsoever for the parties in a marriage "contract," which is what a civil union actually is. None whatsoever. "No fault" divorce basically took care of having to prove grounds for divorce, or fault in the event of adultery or abuse. This hasn't historically boded well for the children of some of the traditional marriages in this country since the actual "protections" have been progressively removed that these civil "unions" and contracts were actually originally meant to protect. In fact, the divorce rate in traditional marriages has soared to now over 50%.

And insofar as any supposed "privileges" of married couples, gays also have those too. Powers of attorney for most legal matters can be assigned to your next door neighbor if you wish, either limited to one legal transaction or a general power of attorney over any individual's legal affairs. Wills can be prepared for an property or inheritance issues, and anyone can purchase property under "joint tenancy" or hold "joint title" to cars or other property. For tax issues, there is the "head of household" option also and many married couples file separately if income levels are such that it is more advantageous to do so.

You don't even need a lawyer for any of the above, since most standard wills and powers of attorney can be purchased for a relatively small cost at your local bookstore or even online. And most married couples still need to execute these documents in the event of hospitalization or any other legal matter which are included in hospital admission forms that have such powers of attorney built into the admission forms and such.

So what "privileges" or "equal protection" was lacking? If there were or are any under Iowa law, the proper Constitutional method would be addressing those, and actually getting those laws readdressed and rescinded.

Gay couples can adopt, and the adoption papers themselves protect rights of inheritance as a traditional couple's adoption would. I'm really perplexed at just what they feel is missing, other than social acceptance - which cannot be legislated on any level. In fact, they have now "invited in" the government to their union, rather than protect it from governmental interference. Sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This new "law" is really nothing more than another Lawyer's Economic Act for the domestic relations attorneys in Iowa. And a now potential challenge for a case at the federal level of the already afforded commitment statutes which exist in many states but where such moves in recognition as actual civil unions have failed in other states such as California in the future - most likely also funded by the taxpayers as there is a federal state which provides for taxpayer paid legal fees for such actions, which was secured long ago by the ACLU.

This was nothing more than a political rendering by a rouge court, and I would guess for the pure benefit of the national attention and recognition many involved in the case would get, and also for the benefit of the Supreme Court members "associates" in the legal industry who were defending the case. The State was appealing the lower court's decision, therefore, the attorneys involved for the "non-profit" organization who originally brought the action would be entitled to their legal fees courtesy of the American people. Purely political.

Marriage is an "institution" with it's foundations in the common law of England. on which our Bill of Rights is based - with the exception of a few provisions thrown in with respect to the right to bear arms, free speech, and assembly, and jury trials for all civil and criminal matters which were not afforded in the sovereign nation of England.

It is God actually who set his plan for marriage in the creation of Adam and Eve. Although the federal government may not interfere in the religious beliefs and practices of citizens in this country, there was never any intent to remove any and all mention of God in our public institutions, or in the laws of this country. None whatsoever.

That provision was merely included in order to prevent a "State" or nationwide religion as had occurred in England, and avoid the dissention that had historically occurred in fights between the Catholics and Protestants, and the Church of England. In fact, Benjamin Franklin in his speech prior to the ratification of the Constitution makes mention of the fact that it was sectarian differences they were wishing to avoid with the arguments over religion in the first place.

And the false Christianity which had been historically practiced in England which had persecuted subjects of the crown in wars and religious tests of loyalty to God or the sovereign repeatedly due to those same sectarian differences.

Expect this decision to be challenged. It most likely will be. The courts in this country are becoming more and more political, and unconstitutional, it appears each and every year.

But even absent any religious bias or basis at all but simply on legal grounds, with all the rights and privileges under Iowa law available to the gay community which have already been provided under the commitment statutes, and powers of attorneys, wills, joint tenancy and joint title provisions for property, this entire movement seems rather ludicrous at this point.

The truth is the gay community are actually asking the government now to get involved in their personal relationship, and it's dissolution if and when it ends, and it will be the legal community that will most benefit from these provisions I guarantee. And the state for the license fees in order to obtain "permission" to marry.

Adoption papers secure rights of inheritance for childen involved, so I'm perplexed at this point.

Be careful what you wish for.