Same-Sex Marriage is Unconstitutional

By RE CASTEL

Same-Sex Marriage is not in accordance with the US Constitution which is founded on natural law.

A law (human law or civil law) that is not in accordance with natural law is not in accordance with the US Constitution – because the US Constitution is founded on natural law. Natural law is the very spirit of the US constitution.

Natural law is that fundamental law that establishes and promotes society. The fundamental principles of natural law is embodied in the US constitution.

The framers of the US Constitution, in the preamble to the Constitution, stated: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The full intent of the US Constitution is characterized by the following:

– to form a more perfect union;

– to establish justice, peace, and defense;

– to promote the general welfare;

– to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

The US Constitution is founded on natural law. The fundamental objective of natural law is to establish society and to promote society – by protecting, securing, and preserving the fundamental human rights of the people now living and of the people yet unborn (the posterity).

Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it cannot properly answer the following with a general basis for the claim of constitutional rights.

How can same-sex marriage "form a perfect union" – particularly starting with same-sex couples – when same-sex couples can never procreate in order to populate and perpetuate the society?

How can same-sex marriage "establish ... defense" when same-sex marriage can never procreate to produce both the people to defend and the people who can defend?

How can same-sex marriage "promote the general welfare" when same-sex marriage is a dead end and a demise of society? What general welfare is possible absent the society that unprocreative same-sex couples are unable to enlarge and promote?

How can same-sex marriage "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" when same-sex marriage simply can never produce the posterity that is expected to enjoy "the blessings of liberty"?

The purported constitutional right to marriage of same-sex couples is not grounded on the requisite inherent rights evidenced by natural capacities that marrying couples generally ought to have. Same-sex couples ought to have, in general, the natural procreative capacity that is in accord with the purpose of the Constitution.

Institutionalizing marriage for same-sex couples would be a grant of unfair privilege. It would be unequal treatment if same-sex couples enjoy the same dignity, honor and privileges accorded to married opposite-sex couples, because same-sex couples do not contribute to the procreative promotion of society while married opposite-sex couples do.

If same-sex couples are allowed the institutionalized marriage, married same-sex couples ought to generally have the naturally-endowed capacity to be a basic procreative social unit similar to married opposite-sex couples. Same-sex couples ought to not burden others in any way on the matter of the salient procreative duties inherently implied in the Constitution. But same-sex couples will assuredly burden others because they do not have the naturally-endowed capacities. Thus, if same-sex couples are allowed the institutionalized marriage, it would in general unfairly allow them the share in the social privileges but not in the social burdens.

The marriage institution establishes the basic social unit wherein procreation is morally, naturally, constitutionally a privilege and a duty. There is no other social unit that fits the description as the basic social unit other than opposite-sex couples, which is why the marriage institution is dedicated for the marriage only of opposite-sex couples – i.e., man and woman.

The social privileges of the people according to their social rights also entail social burdens. It is unfair and unjust if the social privileges are enjoyed by a particular group without the accompanying social burdens.

Same-sex marriage is a sham – ensuing from the fraud and pretense of being a basic social unit. It does not fulfill and is in fact contrary to the purpose of promoting society – which is the pure intent of the US Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Man has been subjected ... to moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience, are the evidence ... the moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society."

It is evidently the moral duty of individuals in a state of nature to establish and promote society. It is impossible to establish and promote society without establishing the proper procreative family unit wherein fruitful love and care can be practiced. Same-sex marriage can never be fruitful in terms of enlarging society. Clearly, same-sex marriage will undermine and destroy the procreative family unit.

The purpose of the US Constitution was not to grant rights to the American people but to establish a government of laws (human laws, civil laws) that would secure (protect and preserve) the fundamentally-endowed human rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence states, "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

Clearly, same-sex marriage will not promote society and the general welfare. And so, any human or civil law for same-sex marriage is unconstitutional in the light of the US constitution and in the light of natural law. Same-sex marriage is not a fundamentally-endowed right, because it is not naturally provisioned to facilitate the fundamental purpose of the US Constitution.

The institutionalization of same-sex marriage is tantamount to a special grant of a purported fundamental human right that does not exist. And the special grant of purported rights, in this case for the marginal few (merely the homosexuals) and not generally for all the people, is not in accord with the US Constitution.

If same-sex marriage is institutionalized in the government of the United States, it will no doubt be to the detriment of the United States. Institutionalized same-sex marriage could usher the ruin of the US Constitution and the United States.

Same-sex marriage is clearly immoral, unnatural, and unconstitutional. "Immoral" in that it does not serve the common good and is not for the general welfare of the people but merely for the few. "Unnatural" in that there is no natural provision for its fulfillment according to the demands for the general welfare of society. And "unconstitutional" because it is contrary to the expressed purpose of the Constitution.

Samuel Adams said, "A general dissolution of principles and manners will surely overthrow the liberties of America more than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued: but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader ... if virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security."

We may exercise tolerance in letting the people chose what they want to do with their lives. They can be same-sex couples as much as they want. But institutionalizing same-sex marriage is another matter.

We cannot institutionalize same-sex marriage because it will not preserve and promote society. It will not secure and preserve for posterity (the yet unborn) their right to life and liberty – which is part of the full intent of the US Constitution. Institutionalized same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it is contrary to these basic principles of the US Constitution.

A same-sex marriage institution, unlike the opposite-sex marriage institution, is unconstitutional on the grounds that it undermines the purpose of the US Constitution. Generally, a same-sex marriage institution will waste the principal natural resource and will deny those who could have been born their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There are those who seek to undermine the fundamental human rights of the people by their pretended human rights. But they should not be allowed to do it. That is why it is appropriate to ban certain things in order to properly govern the people in the constitutional purpose of establishing and promoting society.

Judge Walker forbade enforcement of the same-sex marriage ban because he said:

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."

"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.

"Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Judge Walker is evidently wrong in all these.

The moral disapproval for the institutionalization of same-sex marriage is a responsible obligation to uphold the moral duties between individuals in a state of nature. Because it is the moral duty of individuals to establish and promote society, any undertaking that undermines the purpose of the US Constitution, which purpose is to establish and promote society, can justly be disapproved. The moral obligation to disapprove the institutionalization of certain detrimental human conduct in society, which was done by the voice of the people in the case of Proposition 8 in California, is a fundamental part of the US Constitution.

The rational basis for the disapproval of same-sex marriage according to Proposition 8 is ingrained in the human conscience and fundamentally set in the US Constitution. Homosexuals who seek the institutionalization of same-sex marriage undermine the US Constitution because same-sex marriage is detrimental to the overall purpose of the US Constitution – which purpose is to establish and promote society.

Proposition 8 does not prevent California from fulfilling any constitutional obligation to provide marriages to same-sex couples on an equal basis with opposite-sex couples because the "equal basis" does not exist.

Same-sex couples are by nature unable to fulfill the purpose of the Constitution. On the other hand, opposite-sex couples are generally naturally-endowed for that constitutional purpose. The fundamental natural right does not exist for same-sex couples. Opposite-sex couples alone have that fundamental right. How then can California be constitutionally obliged? California should not grant what the spirit of the Constitution (natural law) has clearly denied. Clearly, there is no constitutional obligation to provide marriages to same-sex couples.

The California constitution is a subset of the US Constitution and must therefore agree with the fundamentals of the US Constitution.

Certainly, Proposition 8 enshrines in the California constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples, because simply that notion is true. Any provision (Proposition 8) necessary to uphold that truth and affirm the high purpose of the Constitution should be enshrined in the California constitution which is a subset of the US Constitution wherein the high purpose, that of establishing and promoting society, is absolutely enshrined.

Clearly, only opposite-sex couples can in general fulfill the fundamentals in the California Constitution, because only opposite-sex couples can procreate and enlarge society for the fulfillment of the fundamental principles and purposes embodied in the US Constitution.

Only opposite-sex couples have in general the natural capacity to procreate – which is a fundamental requisite in establishing and promoting society according to the overall intent of the US Constitution. Therefore, only opposite-sex couples have the natural right to an institutionalized marriage according to the fundamental purposes and full intent of the Constitution.

The institutionalized discrimination between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples in favor of opposite-sex couples is evidently just and lawful according to the US Constitution.

Same-sex couples are clearly inferior to opposite-sex couples because same-sex couples can never do the one fundamental thing that opposite-sex couples are in general able to do according to the fundamental principles salient in the US Constitution – and that is, especially, the matter of procreation. This is an undeniable truth.

There is no substance to the idea that equal rights have been denied by Proposition 8. Because in the first place same-sex couples fundamentally cannot claim, nor fulfill even by an institutionalized same-sex marriage, any supposed right of same-sex couples according to the US Constitution that fundamentally requires that civil laws must fundamentally provide for the establishment and promotion of society.

It is impossible to see, by whatever stretch of responsible imagination, any provision or accommodation of the idea of same-sex marriage in the US Constitution.

California and the whole United States ought to have the clear and general interest in discriminating against homosexuals who seek the institutionalization of same-sex marriage, because same-sex marriage is contrary to natural law and contrary to the US Constitution.

Institutionalizing same-sex marriage and confusing it with the opposite-sex marriage institution, by the promulgation of civil laws that allow it, will encourage the unnatural that undermines the fundamental purposes of the US constitution. It will corrupt the US Constitution. And it will be the demise of American society if the US Constitution is corrupted. Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Judge Walker, as a judge sworn to uphold the Constitution, should reverse his ruling on the case – even in spite of the inadequacies of the proponents and the defenders of Proposition 8.

Click here to download Judge Walker's 136-page ruling.

Same-sex marriage should not be allowed because it is illegal. Same-sex marriage is illegal because it is unconstitutional on the grounds that it does not conform to the fundamental purpose of the US Constitution, which fundamental purpose is to establish and promote society.

Marriage is a vital social institution that establishes and promotes society. Marriage provides legal, financial and social benefits for those who marry. In return, it imposes legal, financial, and social obligations to those who marry.

One of the imposed social obligations is the implied duty to procreate in order to preserve society – that is, to establish and promote society. Only opposite-sex couples, in general, not all of them but in general, are able to procreate – while same-sex couples are altogether useless in the matter of procreation. If the social obligation to procreate is imposed on opposite-sex couples while same-sex couples are not burdened by the same social duty, then it would be fundamentally unfair if same-sex couples are granted the same rights that provide an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits. These are among the reasons why institutionalized marriage is only for opposite-sex couples.

As an aside, an irony is that polygyny, the polygamous practice wherein a man may have multiple wives with the common consent of the man and the women, a practice which was a very efficient way of populating society, was abolished in the US – but now the absolutely unfruitful practice of same-sex couples is being promoted by the unconstitutional institutionalization of same-sex marriage.

It appears that the so-called judges and lawyers, the "enforcers" of the law, are evidently bent on denying the advent of posterity by advancing corruptive laws for the perverted practices. They are clearly trying to ensure the reduction of the yield of the procreative institution down to zero. That will surely be the demise of society.

Why we have to be concerned regarding the relevant matter is a big question.

Yes, really! What's the fuss?

According to an understanding of natural law, the violators of the natural law ultimately will be punished by the course of nature. Same-sex couples will end in the assured demise for they will have no posterity. Whatever offspring they may have by other means will either cut themselves off from the lineage or be naturally the cut off. Same-sex couples will also be proven by their choice as among those who have no desire for the continuation of their seeds forever and ever because they have chosen a naturally damned (limited) way of life. The choice of same-sex couples indicates that they deserve the damned (limited) existence in this life or in the life hereafter. So, really! What's the fuss?

Now, the hope/assumption in the above is of course that there is a hereafter, for otherwise there is no absolute justice. But what bothers us now are the realities associated with the relevant matter in this current life.

We have our concerns because whenever violators of natural law are granted special rights and privileges, the burdens associated with those special rights and privileges are often suffered by those who do the naturally just and fair. Life becomes a bit more difficult for opposite-sex couples.

Opposite-sex couples get taxed more (financially and psychologically) for the accommodations allocated for the institutionalized same-sex marriage. Because of the institutionalization, the legal, financial and social benefits that otherwise could have been allocated to answer the needs of opposite-sex couples in their efforts to establish and promote society are wasted for the unfair accommodation of unfruitful same-sex couples.

For example, financially, the money that opposite-sex couples could have borrowed from the bank gets borrowed by same-sex couples for their unfruitful activities, same-sex couples become legalized competitors to the goods used for the advancement of society. And, psychologically, opposite-sex couples are troubled by the idea that the straights are under-privileged in society while the deviants are favored. There are many other examples.

Of course, all the difficulties can be taken in stride. These are simply a part of it all for opposite-sex couples. But, the affected demands from the proponents of same-sex marriage, resulting from the granting of the special rights in consideration for the pretended natural rights, will evidently eventually get unbearably abrasive and heavy on the unduly burdened sectors of society. This will surely negatively affect the general welfare.

When the ugly and naturally unjust practices (e.g., homosexual marriage) get favored, the beautiful and naturally just practices (e.g., heterosexual marriage) get stressed and may get corrupted.

Naturally unjust laws get instituted by the precedent-establishing rulings of unjust judges and by the legislations of corrupt legislators. But let us continue with our efforts for the hope that the campaign for the institutionalization of same-sex marriage will not prosper.