Natural Law vs. Homosexual Marriage

Natural Law vs. Homosexual Marriage

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on June 27, 2015 at 9:46 PM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html

<<>>

It seems that the constitutional amendment movement will transition from the recent codifying by judicial fiat of homosexual marriage to codifying by constitutional amendment polygamy and marriage, and the Islamic influence of one husband and four wives is already being exerted in various "liberty and equality" ways.

Three examples are from Robert Spencer at JihadWatch.org on June 26, 2015, discussing Islam and Christianity, a Middle East Forum repost of a 2012 National Review article discussing polygamy in Islam, and Politico.com where yesterday, June 26, 2015, polygamy is being proposed as a next step in societal advancement.

Politico.com:
>> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?ml=po#.VY9DZEYsBpi

"Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. .../”

"...Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

"...In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” ... ."

Jihad Watch.org:
>> http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/offer-for-rod-dreher-of-the-american-conservative-a-free-one-way-ticket-to-the-islamic-state

"[...snip]

"...I wonder if Dreher knows that American Muslim advocacy groups, already firmly aligned with the Left, generally supported gay marriage, for the obvious reason that it will lead to the legalization of polygamy.

"There can be little doubt that he knows about Islamic law’s classic provisions for the subjugation and institutionalized second-class status of Christians and other non-Muslims; ...."

Middle East Forum:
>> http://www.meforum.org/3214/gay-marriage-polygamy

"[NOTE: The National Review title is "Polygamy, Too: Muslims have started seeking their own redefinition of marriage"; the following text includes some material cut from the published version.] ...."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It appears that the history of the original meaning of "natural born Citizen" since the time of John Jay in 1787, and the influence before the time of Jay from Coke, Blackstone, Vattel and others, including, following John Jay, in the naturalization acts of Congress, this history since the 1790 Naturalization Act and subsequent congressional statutes will require a transition from being reactive and simply adducing the history of the presidential eligibility language in Article II to being aggressively proactive and proposing a statute or constitutional solution.

Article V is the ONLY constitution way, either proposed by the House and Senate (cough, cough, hack, wheeze, yeah, right) or by the "several states" initiated by We the People.

Art

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is a short comment June 28, 2015 at 8:27 PM that seems to not be pertinent to "natural born Citizen" but it is relevant to the original intent of the Constitution.

thalightguy said...

What's the Constitutional difference between a woman not being able to vote in 1875 and people with the same gender chromosomes being able to marry in 2015?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is Mario's comment June 28, 2015 at 8:32 PM about adoption and the original definition of "natural born Citizen."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Just like adoption does not change the definition of a natural born citizen, same-sex marriage also does not change its definition.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is my comment on June 28, 2015 at 9:02 PM about the definition of "natural born Citizen."

ajtelles said...

Dittos "just like"...

Mario,

Yes, adoption does not change the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" but an amendment to the constitution to incorporate homosexual marriage and Islamic polygamy, see the three urls listed in my earlier comment, plus the most recent articles on National Review onlne since June 26, 2015 regarding homosexual marriage and Islamic polygamy, Section 2 Clause 5 will, specifically the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" will, on "liberty and equality" grounds, need to be amended.

We right thinking John Jay oriented originalists MUST begin to be proactive now, not simply reactive.

Art

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is my comment on June 28, 2015 at 9:26 PM about women not being able to vote in 1875 (Minor v. Happersett) and homosexual marriage in 2015.

ajtelles said...

"What's the Constitutional difference"...

It seems, thlightguy, that the difference between a woman not being able to vote in 1875 and homosexual marriage today in 2015 is that the common law of 1875 was different from the "liberty and equality" common law of progressives like Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar of 2015 (see my previous comments).

The 1787 words "We the People" included everybody physically touching the soil of the United States, however, according to the common law of 1787, for voting purposes, "WE the People" in some of the states included ONLY "We the Men," and definitely did NOT include "we the White Women" OR "We the Negro Men" and not the "We the Negro Women."

The 1865 Thirteenth Amendment gave "freedom" to ALL Negroes, male AND female.
The 1868 Fourteenth Amendment gave "citizenship" to ALL Negores, male and female.
The 1870 Fifteenth Amendment gave "suffrage rights", the right to vote, to "ONLY Negro males".
The 1920 Nineteenth Amendment gave "suffrage rights to ALL women" also, Caucasian AND Negro.

Since 1920, ALL free citizens vote.

So, it seems that, according to our U.S. history, homosexual marriage has never been considered to be equal to heterosexual marriage.

Why?

Well, probably because the natural law "Posterity" of the constitution's preamble that can increase the population of the "We the People...Union" can ONLY be produced by choosing to engage in heterosexual activity, not by adoption.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

<<end of article>>