In general, the debate about the Human Rights of LGBTg Americans to Marry in this country is often depicted by religious conservatives: drooling over their pre-requisite populist sound bites and, Biblical Theologians, fuming with Augustinian or Aquinas' non secular rationalism, in a discussion that usually winds up dead ending over the validity of what's pre Christain versus what's post-Pauline.
But I am not going there this time like I attempted in the previous diary.
Instead, the purpose of this diary is to assert that Homosexuality is an inalienable right: protected by the underlying Constitutional Principle first set forth in The Declaration of Independence as one of the sovereign rights of man.
Moreover, I maintain that:
in order to establish a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
that all the amendments, especially the First, have this concept as its fundamental cornerstone. And it is the First Amendment which has been so radically expanded of late, that I will focus on.
I have thought a great deal about this issue and I believe this brief proposal has some merit. In Chief Justice Robert's written remarks for example, the Chief Justice is quoted as saying that:
(b)Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment’s meaning and purpose.
SCOTUS No. 08-205(1)(b).
A fundamental philosophical question arises: why a first Amendment? If we rely on the bedrock idea that the inalienable rights, those that are sovereign for all men( and by extrapolation women, enemy combatants on our soil and the like) as our guiding Annuit Coeptis
...the inter positions of providence in favor of the American Cause...
...then it is obvious even to the casual observer that the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment is indeed shared by the larger body of all the amendments to Constitution that derive their logical impetus from the
"novus secolorum"
(The dollar bill) of a new American order in favor of the cause of a more perfect union ordained and established for all our posterity.
But of course there is the ongoing dispute at the heart of most if not all deliberations pertaining to the inalienable rights of all Americans to sexual expression, but since the Supreme Court has broadened what was once a "narrow scope" of legal identity in the eyes and statute of the l
Law, then I assert the question is no longer one of sexual expression.
It is now a matter of inherent and inalienable identity of which sexual expression is now merely a single, yet basic component as it is for all human beings by virtue of God-given right and not societal dictated choice.
I must point out here that Citizens United did not meet the argumentative obligation of validity in the their arguments before the Court. Indeed as the following attests:
...Because Citizen United’s narrower arguments are not sustainable, this Court must, in an exercise of its judicial responsibility, consider §441b’s facial valid-ity. Any other course would prolong the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused by §441b’s corporate expenditure ban. 558 U. S. __ (2010) 3
The chilling effect Chief Justice Roberts makes reference to repeatedly throughout the majority decision is a compelling analogy. Yet, the regulatory framework which the Chief Justice chooses to focus on, presupposes a condition of "singular speaker" in an overall entity of corporate administration: at issue, of course is the concept of "prior constraint."
One obvious recreation of the logic underlying this transformation can be found in the following statement: citizenship of 'one' as exisitence derived without observable fact. I'm guessing here but the Latin may go something like this: "polis regium a priori esse Existentia ergo sum." That is probably a bad example of Latin, but the point is that in order to "transform" a general corporate entity into the embodiment of a single individual, a logician would have to first, create a condition of paterfamilias.
In other words, as I have argued, the door to who is and who is not "inherently" a citizen with inalienable rights as ordained by our motto Annuit Coeptis Novus Ordo Seclorum, has been broadened to such a point that it is no longer necessary to demonstrate the inherent nature of all human sexual expression. Indeed, all human identity no longer needs "permission" for, or recognition of its universal Inherentcy. All Historically Professed as Biological Identity is now legally valid.
These onerous restrictions thus function as the equivalent of prior restraint by giving the FEC power analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th-century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit.
Don't be fooled by the apparent disconnect. In the above quote, the facility of prior restraint is ascribed to a social political construct in the FEC. The underlying philosophy is merely a set x's and y's where restrictions operating from a basis of Government imbalance regarding the "inherent rights" of its citizens is just as true for a corporate entity made into a single speaker as it is for a group of women, men and children who hold similar claim to the faculty of human nature given to a Board of Directors and Chief Financial Officers by the highest Court of the land.
Then again, an additional argument can be made.
For the Courts to continue to deny this connection of inherent universal identity to the inherent identity to all individuals is not only an obduracy in recreation of the same 16th and 17th Century laws substantiating institutional inequality in Renaissance England the Chief Justice described, the continued Judicial Hard Hardheartedness is in direct refutation of the First Amendment and the spirit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we Americans are supposed to live by.
If indeed the freedom of speech is a human right and human rights are, by definition inalienable, then the First Amendment's meaning and purpose, must include protections of all citizens where institutionally delusional ice-creamed cotton candies are made for those who want to swallow without the guilt of calories or the inconvenience of the acid reflux of either the Austin or Belotti prior decisions.
Just to be clear I'm not disputing the conflicting precedent Chief Justice Roberts described throughout the majority ruling. But the abandonment of stare decis in addition to virtually making Citizens United's argument for them when they failed to do so, puts the Court in the position of a "Society that Dictates Choice." And choice in this instance expands not only the nature of the First Amendment, the scope of who and what is the single solitary "citizen" the original Statute was originally written to protect.
The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach. The Government has "muffle[d] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy." McConnell, supra, at 257–258 (opinion of SCALIA, J.).
And this statement as well is problematic especially when "the most significant segments of society" described in the quote are in fact not you, or me but the spokespersons of Bendix, or Exxon or Haliburtin.
Interesting, no? Annuit Coeptis Novus Ordo Seclorum? Just who is really in that picture?
Be that as it may, I maintain that, no matter which way we slice this, the legal nature of what is the inherent nature of any individual has been altered by the decision and that includes those of US who are proud to claim the identity of Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgendered American.
I for one argue we should sue under the IX Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America especially in how that Amendment is jointly, directly and inversely related to the recent "liberties" taken with "stare decis" and what should have been Judicial Restraint:
Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This diary is only a proposal: a brainstorm if you will, a beginning. Yeah, I know the Latin is probably wrong and for all intents and purposes, I'm new here and very green. Some of what I have said, I may be absolutely full of it. But I've never been in Court and I never sued anybody for what I thought was a real good reason. The right to Marry and to be recognized as such State-wiset, Federally and Locally, everywher in America is a good reason. Getting rid of DADT once and for all is a good reason. Respect is a good reason. Full citizenship under the eyes the law is a good reason.
But if I'm wrong and not now, then when?
A Few Thoughts from
Tom