Legal pushback against the US Supreme Court’s abuse of power

US DeclarationAt last - some serious legal minds give the activist judges of the US Supreme Court the trashing they deserve. Here is a call to civil resistance against the abuse of judicial power by those five US citizens who imposed their will on the whole USA, against the majority will of the people (as demonstrated in over 30 state plebiscites).

Now for the long road to a constitutional amendment so the people can take back legitimate control from these wigged usurpers.

This is a short but magnificent statement by dozens of top US legal minds. Be encouraged.

Statement Calling for Constitutional Resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges

We are scholars and informed citizens deeply concerned by the edict of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges wherein the Court decreed, by the narrowest of margins, that every state in the country must redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships.

The Court’s majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court’s own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.

The opinion for the Court substituted for traditional—and sound—methods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity—one that abused the moral concept of human dignity.

The four dissenting justices are right to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms.   

Justice Scalia refers to it as “a naked judicial claim to legislative….power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”   

Justice Thomas says the opinion “exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority” as it perverts the meaning of liberty into an entitlement to government action.  

Justice Alito calls attention to the well-established doctrine that the “liberty” guaranteed by the due process clause protects only those rights “that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and that it is “beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.” He further points to the opinion’s tendency to reduce the purpose of marriage to “the happiness of persons who choose to marry.” He warns it will be used to “vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy” and is yet another example of the “Court’s abuse of its authority.”   

Chief Justice Roberts says “the Constitution leaves no doubt” that the majority’s “pretentious” opinion is incorrect. It even attempts to “sully those on the other side of the debate” in an “entirely gratuitous” manner.   

If Obergefell is accepted as binding law, the consequences will be grave. Of the results that can be predicted with confidence, four stand out: 

First, society will be harmed by being denied the right to hold out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. This compelling interest is strengthened by the fact that there is strong evidence to support what common sense suggests, namely, that children fare best when raised by their married mother and father who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal influences and care.  

Second, individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union—the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman—will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy.   

Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.

Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined. 

Any decision that brings about such evils would be questionable. One lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States.

In 1788, James Madison wrote, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”   

In 1857, Abraham Lincoln said, “Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.” If a decision “had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.” If, however, a decision is “wanting in all these claims to the public confidence,” it is “not factious” to resist it.   

Obergefell is wanting in all these claims to the public confidence. It cannot therefore be taken to have settled the law of the United States.   

Therefore: 

We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is. 

We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.  

We call on all federal and state officeholders: 

To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.

To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions.

To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to followObergefell for constitutionally protected reasons.

To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.

We emphasize that the course of action we are here advocating is neither extreme nor disrespectful of the rule of law. Lincoln regarded the claim of supremacy for the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional interpretation as incompatible with the republican principles of the Constitution. Our position is summed up in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: 

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

The proper understanding and definition of marriage is self-evidently a vital question affecting the whole people. To treat as “settled” and “the law of the land” the decision of five Supreme Court justices who, by their own admission, can find no warrant for their ruling in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, would indeed be to resign our government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. That is something that no citizen or statesman who wishes to sustain the great experiment in ordered liberty bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be willing to do. 

Signatories

(Institutional affiliations are for identification purposes only)

Bradley C. S. Watson, Philip M. McKenna Chair in American and Western Political Thought and Professor of Politics, Saint Vincent College

John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University

George W. Dent, Jr., Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University, Founder of American Principles Project

Matthew J. Franck, Director, William E. and Carol G. Simon Center for Religion and the Constitution, Witherspoon Institute

Daniel J. Mahoney, Augustine Chair in Distinguished Scholarship, Assumption College

Stephen H. Balch, Director, Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, Texas Tech University

Mickey G. Craig, William & Berniece Grewcock Professor of Politics, Hillsdale College

Paul Moreno, William and Berniece Chair in US Constitutional History, Hillsdale College

Lucas E. Morel, Class of 1960 Professor of Ethics and Politics, Washington and Lee University

Joseph M. Knippenberg, Professor of Politics, Oglethorpe University

Susan Hanssen, Associate Professor of History, University of Dallas

Wm. Barclay Allen, Dean Emeritus, Michigan State University

Daniel C. Palm, Professor of Politics and International Relations, Azusa Pacific University

Lynn D. Wardle, Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University

Scott FitzGibbon, Professor of Law, Boston College Law School

Stephen Casey, Casey Law Office, P.C.

James C. Phillips, J.D.

Joshua W. Schulz, Associate Professor of Philosophy, DeSales University

John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Law, Louisiana State University Law Center

Ralph A. Rossum, Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism, Claremont McKenna College

Walter Schumm, Professor of Family Studies, Kansas State University

Anne Hendershott, Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life, Franciscan University of Steubenville 

Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame

Christopher Wolfe, Professor of Politics, University of Dallas

Michael D. Breidenbach, Assistant Professor of History, Ave Maria University

Robert Koons, Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin

Stephen M. Krason, Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies, Franciscan University of Steubenville; President, Society of Catholic Social Scientists

Micah J. Watson, William-Spoelhof Teacher-Chair in Political Science, Calvin College

Daniel Robinson, Fellow, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford

David Novak, J. Richard and Dorothy Shiff Chair of Jewish Studies and Professor of Religion and Philosophy, University of Toronto

Adam J. MacLeod, Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University

Robert Lowry Clinton, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Colleen Sheehan, Professor of Political Science, Villanova University

Peter W. Wood, President, National Association of Scholars

Michael M. Uhlmann, Professor of Politics and Policy, Claremont Graduate University

John Agresto, Former president of St. John’s College, Santa Fe, and the American University of Iraq

Mark T. Mitchell, Professor of Government, Patrick Henry College

Carol M. Swain, Professor of Political Science and Law, Vanderbilt University

Nathan Schlueter, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Hillsdale College

J. Daryl Charles, Affiliated Scholar, John Jay Institute

Ted McAllister, Edward L. Gaylord Chair and Associate Professor of Public Policy, Pepperdine University

David R. Upham, Associate Professor of Politics, University of Dallas

Thomas D’Andrea, Fellow, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge; Director, Institute for the Study of Philosophy, Politics, and Religion

Daniel Mark, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Villanova University

Hadley P. Arkes, Edward N. Ney Professor of Jurisprudence  Emeritus, Amherst College;Director, James Wilson Institute on Naturals Right and the American Founding 

Philip Bess, Professor of Architecture, University of Notre Dame

Jeffery J. Ventrella, Senior Counsel and Senior Vice-President of Student Training and Development, Alliance Defending Freedom

Teresa S. Collett, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Jay Bergman, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University

Robert L. McFarland, Associate Dean of External Affairs and Associate Professor of Law,Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University

Carson Holloway, Associate Professor Political Science, University of Nebraska, Omaha

Gary D. Glenn, Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus, Northern Illinois University

Paul A. Rahe, Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in Western Heritage, Hillsdale College

Angelo Codevilla, Professor Emeritus, Boston University

Bradley P. Jacob, Associate Professor of Law, Regent University School of Law

Raymond B. Marcin, Professor of Law Emeritus, The Catholic University of America

Matthew Spalding, Associate Vice President and Dean, Allen P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, Hillsdale College

James A. Davids, Associate Professor of Law, Regent University School of Law

Ken Masugi, Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute

Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science Emeritus, California State University, San Bernardino

James W. (Jim) Richardson, Board of Directors, Christian Legal Society

Robert F. Sasseen, President and Professor of Politics Emeritus, University of Dallas

Lynne Marie Kohm, John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law and Associate Dean of Faculty Development and External Affairs, Regent University School of Law

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

27 Responses

  1. They’re advocating lawlessness. If someone on our side acted like that, they would be harshly slammed.

    And don’t bother trying to pretend it applies only to the plaintiffs. It’s been tried, and didn’t end well. Kim Davis got what she deserved.

  2. This document is a defense of the democratic process. It should be applauded.

    The 5 Supreme Court judges have overridden the will of the people – this is a fundamental violation of the Spirit of the USA

    The decision should be reversed.

  3. The problem with that is that when you start getting into the realm of disobeying court decisions you disagree with, you open the door for other people to do it too. Why is my disobedience less valid than your disobedience? If the ACT tried to continue to enforce its same-sex marriage law, I would say that they shouldn’t.

    I agree that obeying court decisions is not completely absolute (eg Dred Scott), but I would set a much higher bar than same-sex marriage.

  4. Some people think Christians and Muslims must work together to protect their shared traditions from what amounts to cultural genocide by leftists obsessed with equality, libertarians obsessed with individual liberty, and the capitalist hyenas they are in bed with. That said, nobody is stopping traditional marriages. Does same-sex marriage (SSM) pose such a threat to society that extreme measures need to be taken to stop it? Did the sky fall in when the Netherlands legalized SSM in2001 or in Canada when it legalized SSM in 2005?

    • The Netherlands can’t control the terrorists.

      • Are you seriously blaming same-sex marriage for Islamic terrorism? Islamic terrorists tend not to like LGBT people. They throw them off buildings.

    • Thank you!

      We may not agree on everything, but that’s good to hear.

      I actually do agree that some leftists are trying to destroy culture, by promoting multiculturalism to an extreme degree, defending Islam to the end of the Earth, and wanting to abolish holidays like Christmas. I’m an atheist, and I find that ridiculous.

  5. The will of the people was ignored in the USA. The judgement of very few should be scrutinised if that judgement undermines the freedoms that the US Constitution is designed to protect. Redefining marriage is in my opinion one of the most important issues for society to think long and hard about. There are many adverse consequences to same sex marriage that many do not realise or want to acknowledge. If this Supreme Court decision was made erroneously as indicated by these many experts then it should not be used as a valid precedent.

    • What are the adverse consequences? I’ll pre-empt two expected responses:

      Gay parenting (due to adoption etc. laws, not marriage laws)

      Religious freedom (anti-discrimination laws, not marriage laws)

      • sam

        Any actions that normalise something that is not normal will have repercussions. The list is too long and we are sick of going through it.

        • You won’t tell me? Fine. But I’m not going to believe that there are any if none are proven.

          • Changing legal marriage into a Homosexual union (anal and oral sexual behaviour) which both same-sex and heterosexual couples can practice has never been blessed with biological children. However, these sexual behaviours have been cursed with significant harmful health problems which include: illnesses – anal, vaginal and throat pain, self-harm/suicide; diseases – STDs, HIV/AIDS, pelvic inflammatory disease, the ‘gay bowel syndrome’; infertility; cancers; death. Homosexual behaviours will be taught to children and teenagers as normal sexual behaviours if same-sex marriage is legalised in Australia. Marriage is a sexual union otherwise we would call it friendship or a business partnership. The union between a man and a woman has nothing to do with this new marriage club because same-sex couples are unable to practice this behaviour.

  6. A response to Janine:

    Anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex, I agree. But it’s risky for gay and straight couples alike. We don’t ban couples who do it from marriage.

    Furthermore, it’s just wild speculation that kids will be taught how to do it if gay marriage becomes legal. Considering that books about penguins are enough to freak out conservatives, I’m not surprised that they would be unhinged enough to wildly guess like that.

    Finally, marriage equality reduces STIs by showing tolerance, making gay people less fearful that they need to act in dangerous places, which increases rates of infection.

    • All the countries which have legalised same-sex marriages have changed sex education and health to promote homosexuality (anal and oral sex) without informing the harmful health problems, as to not offend same-sex couples. You need to live overseas like our family had experienced to gain a real understanding of the problems. There are huge numbers of students whom are home-schooled by their parents in Boston M.A because of homosexuality being taught as normal. Hope you don’t have a daughter which ends up with a guy who believes he has the right to practice on her homosexual and heterosexual behaviours. You’ll be dealing with faecal incontinence, green vaginal discharge, anal and vaginal pain, anal fistula, anal cancer, cervical cancer, throat cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, STDs, AIDS/HIV, infertility and death. You and your male partner will really believe you’ve both cursed when you observe this kind of trauma. You’ll think your daughter is better off dead than alive if she has to live with guys that treat her worse sexually than an animal. You only have to look at the Hook-up-culture of “friends with benefits” and family violence to realise girls and women’s relationships with guys have significantly deteriorated over the years. My 13 yr old girl is telling me that she has friends at school into this casual sexual behaviour. You won’t be getting any warnings from public health officials of any problems as they won’t want to offend homosexuals. Gonorrhoea has become recently become drug-resistant in Northern England, but it has never been reported in the Age or by public health officials. To preserve the Australian culture which we have today we’re all relying on heterosexual couples having children, but what I am observing in my work and our society are not very healthy sexual behaviours. Unless relationships between men and women are significantly change now, our society only has a few decades before we’ll lose our culture due to infertility, poor relationships and diseases, cancers and deaths.

      • I’m not going to take your word for it that what you say has been happening is happening. Find me a concrete source of evidence showing that oral/anal sex is now taught in schools in places where same-sex marriage has been legalised.

        You said “There are huge numbers of students whom are home-schooled by their parents in Boston M.A because of homosexuality being taught as normal.” This works in my favour, not yours. Their parental rights have been upheld. They have the right to educate their children. They just don’t have the right to unilaterally decide what the public school curriculum will be.

        Also Janine, you’re severely discrediting yourself. You’re blaming gay people for what straight people are doing.

        “Hope you don’t have a daughter which ends up with a guy who believes he has the right to practice on her homosexual and heterosexual behaviours.”

        If it’s a heterosexual relationship, it’s heterosexual behaviour, even if it is oral/anal sex.

        “You and your male partner will really believe you’ve both cursed when you observe this kind of trauma.”

        From that, I’m guessing you’ve read a comment where I acknowledge that I am bisexual. But I am not in any relationship at the moment. Even if I was, this isn’t admittedly something I’d want to do.

        “You’ll think your daughter is better off dead than alive if she has to live with guys that treat her worse sexually than an animal. You only have to look at the Hook-up-culture of “friends with benefits” and family violence to realise girls and women’s relationships with guys have significantly deteriorated over the years. My 13 yr old girl is telling me that she has friends at school into this casual sexual behaviour.”

        Everything you said here is a problem with how straight people are acting, not gay people.

  7. Nick, Did you do sex education at school? What do you think is wrong with children and teenagers learning homosexual behaviours (anal and oral sexual behaviour) as normal? Do you see any problems if every guy only wants to practice homosexual behaviours with their partners? Do you care if girls and women become infertile and are unable to have children? What makes you believe that gays and lesbians only have experienced homosexual behaviours when many have experienced heterosexual behaviour, and have been attracted to the opposite sex. There are lesbians and gays whom have had children in heterosexual marriages. You blame heterosexual people for divorce and children being hurt by heterosexual divorce. However, there are many parents whom identify themselves as gay/lesbians which have divorced, so they were raising their children as gay/lesbian parents. How did all these people change from straight to gay/lesbian? How have so many gays/lesbians changed to being identified as straight. Likewise, there are heterosexuals which have practiced both heterosexual and homosexual behaviours in same-sex and heterosexual relationships. Unfortunately, practicing both sexual behaviours causes cancers, STDs and infertility and death.

    The Japanese recognise homosexual behaviours (anal and oral sexual behaviours), they don’t recognise sexual orientation. Why can’t same-sex couples have children naturally via the homosexual behaviours (anal and oral sex)? Do you believe God was wrong not to bless this loving sexual union with children considering both same-sex and heterosexual couples can practice homosexual behaviours? Do you think one day scientist can make homosexual behaviours reproduce children? Do you believe marriage should mean a homosexual union (anal and oral sex) for both same-sex and heterosexual couples? Do you believe the union between a man and woman should no longer exist since this will no longer have a name? The next generation of children and teenagers are going to be so confused over sexual behaviours and relationships maybe they’ll become like the Japanese and be interested in a single life. Nick, when I was a child I didn’t know what gay and straight were. Children and teenagers are placed in a family and are a part of society, and they learn about relationships including sexual behaviours which are acceptable. There is plenty of information on-line which can show you evidence of children and teenagers are learning about homosexual behaviours in countries which have legalised same-sex marriage. Doctors whom want to warn people about the health problems with homosexuality are being silenced. You don’t hear doctors or nurses warning against abortion, and encouraging girls and women to not use abortion like the pill. It is extremely traumatic as a health professional being put in a position of murdering a neonate and discarding the body as pretend bodily waste. I tell my husband I am a legal murderer, but I am no better than my second cousin whom murdered his girlfriend by cutting her up into a thousand pieces. Do you think God will judge my legal murdering any different to my second cousin’s murdering even though mine was legal by the government? I treated my dead cats with more dignity and respect. Do you think God will judge his natural marriage differently to same-sex marriage even if it is made legal by the government? Do you think it would be acceptable for heterosexual couples to only commit to a life-time of anal and oral sex and exclude all others? Then they could use their “friends with benefits,” divorce, separation, IVF, surrogacy, and or adoption to get their children. This would make heterosexual couples equal to same-sex couples. The government is changing the marriage institute to a “marriage for benefits” club. This new “marriage for benefits” club has nothing to do with religion, nature, scientific research, history or human rights. Since the government is redefining marriage, then divorce has no religious meaning – sin, adultery. This new “marriage for benefits” will be known as the “meaningless marriage,” equivalent to the Hook-up-cultures” – “friends with benefits” also called the “meaningless sex.” Will it be wrong to have open marriages, affairs – adultery in this new non-religious “marriage for benefits” club?

    My German forefathers had non-legal marriages because the King tried to control their minds, and tried to make them get married in his State church, but they refused. Their prayers were answered by moving to Australia. No religion is going to make me belong to the new “marriage for benefits” club as this has nothing to do with the sexual union between a man and woman because same-sex couples are unable to practice this behaviour. What will stop couples from lobbying governments to establishing a Biological family Act which includes natural family? The government will have a difficult time stopping this from happening because human rights support men and women being able to found a natural family. Marriage is like a church which the developers want to change from a place of worship into apartments for people to live in permanently for themselves. People may want to keep the building for its original purpose, but if the developers want to take it over, then the religious people will find themselves leaving and creating a new place to worship their beliefs.

    Nick, you’re young, and you can have control over your behaviours (including sexual). I had to make a decision along time ago, and I believe you’re going to have to make a decision some day. I don’t regret the decision I made but I’m not going to lie and say, “it was easy.” I had to wait for the perfect guy to come into my life for me to want to get married. I know the love I have for my husband and children is different to the love I have for my close girlfriends. I wouldn’t have liked being in the position of marrying my close life-time girlfriend for life, but later divorcing her to be with my husband and biological children. I am glad I was born at the right time of history not to have made such a horrible mistake. I know people can change significantly as I have recently witnessed a friend I have helped over the past year being unemployed to now working full-time. She had spent a number of years being defined by her mental illness, and constantly seeing a psychiatrist and psychologist. I don’t see same-sex attraction any harder to overcome than this experience. I was blessed when I was a teenager I met a gay couple whom got out of the ‘gay life-style’ by giving their life to Christ Jesus. They told me 85% of homosexuals had suffered some form of sexual abuse. I am not saying people aren’t born with some attraction to the same-sex, but we are able to control the level of this relationship. If I have learnt to do it, then I believe everyone else can also learn to control their behaviour. I am still a loving and affectionate person to my girlfriends but I don’t cross certain boundaries. I have to teach my children self-control and displaying appropriate sexual behaviours. You seem to separate gay and straight people by what definition. There are people with both gay and straight behaviours but they don’t define their life by their past, and they don’t see themselves as bisexual. The complexity of people and their relationships would amaze you, and it’s hard to categorise people’s behaviours (including sexual). Do you think same-sex couples are going to give up sex outside marriage (fornication) if the government redefines marriage? I think you need to keep asking the big questions in life, and I believe one day you’ll find the answer. Nick, today you identify yourself as bisexual, next year you could tell me your “gay,” then in a few years you could tell me that your “straight.” Do you think marriage should change for people’s love desires? then why should the government limit the commitment to two people? or for life? What is the commitment of marriage since there’s no religion in the new “marriage for benefits” club. Why would any couple want to identify with a man-made “marriage for benefits” club? This may explain the reason for the significant decline in marriages in all countries which have legalised same-sex marriage, and there has been a significant increase in children born outside marriage. I won’t be identifying myself with the new “marriage for benefits” club as they can all say they love practicing anal and oral sexual behaviours. However, they can’t say that legal marriage is the loving sexual union between a man and a woman because same-sex couples can practice this sexual behaviour. Couples whom wish to continue practicing natural marriage will have to do this non-legal until a new Biological family Act which includes natural marriages is created.

    • I can’t respond directly to what you’ve said, because it’s too long. But let me offer some general points:

      Sexual behaviour can be classified as homosexual or heterosexual based on who it’s done with, not the act itself (the exception is philias).

      I am not saying gay people do not have straight experiences. I’m saying it doesn’t make them not gay. People do one off things.

      Divorce of straight relationships by gay people is the result of pressure to marry the opposite sex, which not allowing same-sex marriage reinforces.

      Declines in marriage in other countries began long before same-sex marriage was introduced.

      You make completely illogical leaps between “sexuality is fluid” and “the government has no reason to encourage marriage between two people for life”.

      Marriage is good for people and society, whether it is gay couples or straight ones.

      • Nick, you say marriage has been shown as a good thing for people and society, but the history of same-sex marriage is too short. If marriage has been shown to be a good thing for people and society why has it significantly decreased in countries which have introduced same-sex marriage? Gay and Lesbian people have lived in heterosexual relationships for years and have divorced and moved into another heterosexual marriage with children. This isn’t a once-off, it is a life-style. I believe like the Japanese that homosexual behaviours (anal and oral sexual behaviours) can be practiced by same-sex and heterosexual couples, and sexual orientation isn’t important. When these sexual behaviours are practiced by same-sex and heterosexual couples they lead to significant harmful health problems.

        • Marriage rates have dropped not because of marriage equality. They’ve been dropping for a long time. Correlation is not causation.

          By the way, sexual orientation is a thing. It’s not just about behaviour.

          • Nick, If sexual orientation is a thing and not just a behaviour, could you please explain what that thing is with scientific support, otherwise I won’t believe you. I can do everything a same-sex couple does with my close girlfriends and husband, except homosexual behaviours (anal and oral sexual behaviours). Some gays/lesbians find heterosexual behaviour (a union between a man and women which reproduces children) to be disgusting, so they are prejudice, bigot, and “heterophobic” to my sexual behaviour. I treat all Australians with dignity and respect despite their race, religion, nationality and gender. However, society has never treated all behaviours as equal. Positive behaviours have been encouraged and rewarded, and negative harmful behaviours should never be rewarded and have often been punished. The sheep and the goats are separating over same-sex marriage because the sexual behaviours are extremely different. Heterosexual behaviour has been blessed with children, Homosexual behaviours (anal and oral sexual behaviours) has been cursed with illnesses, self-harm/suicide, STDs, HIV/AIDS, pelvic inflammatory disease, cancers, infertility and death. You have provided no scientific evidence why heterosexual couples would accept this new made-made “marriage for benefits” club and the new divorce as this no longer has any religious meaning.

  8. Sexual orientation is your inclination or predisposition to be romantically/sexually attracted to people of a certain sex or sexes. Sexual attractions do not exist in a vacuum. They exist because of our predispositions to like people of a certain sex or certain sexes, predispositions we have no control over. If you can’t accept that as fact, this discussion is doomed. That would be the kind of wacko relativism I expect from the regressive left.

    By the way, heterosexual behaviour also creates unwanted children. And it’s not homosexual behaviour per se that leads to STIs. It’s risky behaviour that is more likely to be practiced by some gay men (although lesbian sex is even safer than straight sex, but that is never talked about). Sexual conduct between two people of the same sex is not dangerous because it is two people of the same sex. Religious conservatives love to emphasise the difference between inclination and behaviour, which they are actually right to do, because it does exist. But they can never accept the logical conclusion: that the orientation of homosexuality is not at all harmful.

    “Indiana’s government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of government encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents—model citizens really—so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.”

    – Richard Posner, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Baskin v. Bogan

    By the way, the reason that straight couples would continue to marry is because no right-thinking person goes “wait, gay marriage is legal? Well, I don’t want to marry now.” That’s just common sense.

    And do you think gay relationships should be criminalized? You certainly seemed to suggest it.

    • Nick, I like your argument but I have to disagree. Firstly, I would never suggest to criminalise homosexual experiences otherwise I would have had to go to jail. Secondly, I know the love I have for my close girlfriend is different to the love I have for my husband and children. I have had to learn to control my behaviours including sexual behaviour. I can’t marry both my husband and my close girlfriend I have known all my life, and I am happy with the decision which I made a long time ago. Thirdly, for both gays and lesbians their life-span are significantly reduced compared to heterosexuals. There is no scientific research evidence that shows lesbian sexual behaviours is safer than heterosexual behaviour. If you don’t believe homosexuals need to control their sexual behaviours, then your going to have a hard time believing adults should control their sexual behaviour with children or animals or close relatives or with multiple partners. You can use excuses of consent, genetic problems and the law but these can all be easily changed by the law. IVF was only for married couples then the laws changed to allow, single and defacto. Religious moral beliefs have influenced families and societies values which have control or guided people’s behaviours (including sexual behaviours) and practices. I know women can and do have extremely close relationships with their girlfriends and I have experienced this myself. However, society should protect children/teenagers from experiencing romantic/sexual relationships which will have a significant harmful health and relationship problem. Do you believe that gays/lesbians are only attracted to other gays/lesbians? As this hasn’t been my experience.

      • HIV doesn’t contribute to a shorter lifespan anymore. Other things that can contribute today are things like suicide and hate crimes.

        How exactly do you propose to “protect” youth from harmful sexual experiences? Once you get to 16, it’s up to you. Should the age of consent be raised? Should sex education be scrapped? And yes, of course gay people don’t only like other gay people.

        • Nick, as a health care worker it is important for children and teenagers to learn about their body and how to take care and protect it from harmful health and relationship problems. Nick, HIV has no cure, however people with it require a life-time treatment of drugs. The shorter life-span for homosexuals isn’t just caused by suicide and hate crimes. I know a lesbian 39yr old who recently died unexpectedly from heart disease and left behind 3 children. The Age recently reported another lesbian having extensive cervical cancer requiring a major operation. She is scared of dying because she has a 9yr old child to look after. Seriously, you don’t believe suicide and hate crimes are going to be fixed by a wedding day here in Australia. Especially when it is not illegal to be in a same-sex relationship. The AIDS epidemic was around when I was young, so most people only wanted to be with one other person who they could trust. The Hook-Up-Culture “Friends with benefits” came after my husband and I got married. Controlling sexual behaviours is the best practice – preferably one heterosexual partner for life. My husband and I met in our early twenties and we have been married for nearly 18yrs with 3 biological children. Nick, relationships don’t have to be stressful, it is about finding someone you can trust with your life and you both have common goals. I have no regrets that I chose to be in a loving relationship with my husband and children. I still love my close girlfriend but this is a different love to the one I have for my husband and children. I wish you all the best! Take care!

          • Well, thank you for your good wishes. And I’m actually in agreement with most of that, but the best way to encourage taking care of yourself is to be honest about sex, not secretive and oppressive.

          • Nick, I couldn’t agree with you more that being honest about the practice of sexual behaviours is extremely different between homosexuals and heterosexuals couples. The union between a man and woman has been blessed with biological children. The sexual union between same-sex couples hasn’t been blessed with children, but has been cursed with illnesses, disease-STDs, HIV/AIDS, pelvic inflammatory disease, cancers, infertility and death. Marriage is the foundation to forming a natural family which is support by human rights, religion, history and scientific evidence. If Australians want to change marriage into “marriage for benefits” club which is man-made by the LGBTIAQ, then legal marriage will be for a homosexual union (anal and oral sexual behaviours) which both same-sex and heterosexual couples can practice. This new “marriage for benefits”club will make it possible for all adults whom want marriage equality with multiple partners, minors, close relatives and or animals to gain their civil rights by changing the law. As religion has nothing to do with this new “marriage for benefits” club it will normalise open marriage, affairs, pornography, and give guys the right to anal and oral sexual behaviours with their partners and it will make it extremely hard for partners to refuse. It will be normalised for children to be legally removed from at least one biological parent. Millions of couples whom identify with natural marriage won’t need legal marriage and divorce as this has nothing to do with religion. There is nothing secretively or oppressive about homosexual behaviours being practiced by same-sex couples in Australia. Australians don’t look down on couples in defacto or civil partnerships, but these relationships haven’t been recognise as marriage. The more I study marriage and divorce, maybe it is a blessing by God for couples to no longer have to get legally married since the government and the courts are so corrupt these days.

  9. Ash

    Janine, I would like to applaud you for your enlightening summary on this topic.

Leave a comment