Tuesday, June 7, 2011

A Treatise on "Marriage Equality"

A Treatise on ‘Marriage Equality:’

Influenced by the Works of John Locke and His Notions of Natural Law, as well as the Lockean Founders of the United States of America.

**EDIT: please substitute the "law of nature," every time I write the "laws of nature" in the plural sense. Locke and the others typically refer to this law as the "law of nature" in the singular grammar form; I sometimes prefer "laws" in the plural, but in order to remain consistent and clear, since I'm citing Locke and Lockeans quite often, I will recommend the above mentioned substitution.

The issue I have with individuals such Robert Levy and David Boaz, of the remarkable liberty loving group “Cato Institute,” and their arguments about the constitutionality of “marriage equality,” or in their words, legal sanctioning of same-sex marriage, as well as who's rights are being violated if we allow same-sex marriage is that these are the wrong questions to be asking.  Clearly Libertarians such as Levy and Boaz support their notion of “marriage equality,” or legal sanctioning of same-sex marriage.  And they are not the only ones.  Some Republicans feel the same way, as well as do some Democrats.  People and politicians from all over the political spectrum support the legal sanction of same-sex marriage, which is to them a right, that right being “marriage.”  And they have invoked the U.S. Constitution in order to try to persuade the rest of American society that same-sex marriage is not only acceptable, but legally a right.  But the answer to this question of “marriage equality” lies well outside the realms of the U.S. Constitution, for the U.S. Constitution owes allegiance to yet a higher law, the laws of nature. 
And this is what this treatise on marriage equality is going to be about, the laws of nature, and whether they condone same-sex marriage or not.  The reader who supports same-sex marriage may be disinclined to read any further.  Fair enough, for this treatise will be in opposition to your opinions on marriage.  But I beseech you not to make the mistake of being set in your ways and in your opinions before observing all the facts concerning this issue, and that you bare with me and read what I have to write concerning this current notion of “marriage equality.”  What I have to say might just leave a very deep impression on your mind.  And even if you are indeed set in your ways of thinking, I don’t think it would be possible for anyone to quit reading past this introduction and ignore the natural curiosity as to what the opposition might think concerning the notion of “marriage equality.”  So please, read on and ponder with an open mind what I have to say.

On the Role of Natural Law in the Government and Laws of the United States of America

It is true that governments are instituted to protect the natural and civil rights of the different members of society who live under such a government.  But it is also true that while our Constitution is our fundamental laws, all human laws, including fundamental law is bound by and must adhere to the laws of nature, as pointed out by the very individuals who influenced and still influence the Libertarian movement, individuals such as Locke, Trenchard and Gordon, Blackstone, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and all the rest of Founders, including Thomas Paine.  Human laws cannot contradict the laws of nature.  And as such, it is reasonable and scientifically proven that nature and nature's creator established two separate sexes on the earth, so as to not only to continue the human race, as Locke rights in his first "Treatise on Government," but also to be a companion and helpmeet to each other, to be a family, a miniature of society, the smallest social unit.  All writers of classical liberalism accepted this notion, as described in the Biblical account of the creation, and all the Founders, despite their somewhat quasi-Deistic beliefs accepted the creation of first man and then woman, and nature's law or commandment that they continue their race and be companions together.  Proof of this abounds in Locke's first "Treatise on Government."  And even Thomas Paine, that critic of Christianity and all organized religion, who questioned in "The Age of Reason" whether there has ever been divine revelation other than the creation, who denounced the Bible as the word of God, and who refused to believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, questioning the probability and possibility of his Atonement and Resurrection, said the following concerning the Biblical account of the creation in his “Rights of Man:”

"The Mosaic account of the creation, whether taken as divine authority or merely historical, is full to this point, the unity or equality of man. The expression admits of no controversy. "And God said, Let us make man in our own image. In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." The distinction of sexes is pointed out, but no other distinction is even implied. If this be not divine authority, it is at least historical authority, and shows that the equality of man, so far from being a modern doctrine, is the oldest upon record."

Indeed, Paine tells us in "The Age of Reason" that the creation being the Bible for the Deist, all one needs to do to discover God and His will is to study nature and the creation, as well as all of the sciences.  And when one studies nature and the creation, one sees that the sexes were created distinctly by the Creator, two distinct sexes being created, meant for each other for companionship and in order to continue the species of the human race.  Not only does this natural concept of distinct sexes meant for each other appear in the human species, but it appears in every other animal species in the world.  But more on this will be expounded upon later in this treatise.  For now though, let us return to the above quotation by Paine.  Before anyone denounces those opposed to same-sex marriage as "Bible thumping neo-cons" or "socially conservative, right-wing religious zealots," remember that even Paine, who refused to believe that the Bible was of a divine authority, accepted it and the account of the Creation, with the distinction of the sexes and their individual roles in nature, not only solely with the human race, but with almost all creatures as well, as reasonable and historical proof of our rights and the source we claim our rights from.  Hence the Bible is a historical reference for us to use, not just solely of a religious nature.  And all the Founders and the radical Whigs who influenced them accepted this, as well as the existence and role in human society and the world of the laws of nature. 

Trenchard and Gordon, the two Radical Whig authors of “Cato’s Letters,” write the following in their aforementioned work:

"The essence of Law, of right and wrong, does not depend upon words and clauses, inserted into a code or statute book, much less upon the conclusions and explications of lawyers; but upon reason and the nature of things, antecedent to all laws."

William Blackstone, the famous English judge and jurist, as well as author of the highly influencial “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” writes the same exact thing in his “Commentaries:”

"UPON these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."

And even if one were to erase the part of the above quotation concerning the law of revelation, and leave solely the law of nature in place, it would not matter in the context of “marriage equality,” or the sanctioning of homosexual marriage by American law, because, as will presently be shown, the laws of nature do not condone same-sex marriage.

As already asserted, these writings by John Locke, Trenchard and Gordon, William Blackstone, and other writings concerning the nature of law and the laws of nature very much influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States, the constitution-writers and ratifiers of the American Revolution, both the state constitutions and the federal Constitution.  If you look, writings such as these are very much written into the federal Constitution and American politics and law. They are very much present in the Constitution, even if the exact wording was not actually incorporated into it.  Where's the proof, some may ask?  The proof lies not only in the simple reading of the history of the American Revolution, but also in the quotes of American  Founders:

"The 'imaginary omnipotence' of the legislatures, 'that whatever is ordained must be law, without any exception of right and wrong must be restrained within the bounds of reason, justice, and natural equity.' 'Will and Law' [are] not synonymous in free governments. 'Any acts therefore which are contrary to nature, justice, morality, benevolence, are contrary to reason,' and 'not withstanding the authority of Kings, Lords, and Commons, or to speak more in place, of the Senate and House of Commons, [are] null and void, being mere corruptions, and not laws'."
~Gordon S. Wood, "The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787," pg. 456 (Wood quoting a North Carolinian from 1787).

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."  He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise...."
~Thomas Jefferson; "The Declaration of Independence."

This last quote seems specifically influenced by Lockean theory and William Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” in that once a society dissolves its legislative body, the society returns to a state of nature where all legislative power returns to the people as a whole, to do with it as they please. This line of thought also influenced many other Founding Fathers as well. James Otis, Jr., of 1760’s and 1770’s Boston, Massachusetts, talks of this as well in his "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved," which states:

"But let the origin of government be where it may, the end of it is manifestly the good of the whole. Salus populi suprema lex esto [let the welfare of the people be the supreme law], is of the law of nature, and part of that grand charter given the human race (though too many of them are afraid to assert it) by the only monarch in the universe, who has a clear and indisputable right to absolute power; because he is the only ONE who is omniscient as well as omnipotent..."

"To say the [British] parliament is absolute and arbitrary, is a contradiction. The parliament cannot make 2 and 2, 5. Omnipotency cannot do it. The supreme power in a state, is jus dicere [to declare the law (judges/judiciary)] only:-jus dare [to give or make the law (legisalture/legislative)] , strictly speaking, belongs alone to God. Parliaments [and Congresses] are in all cases to declare [DECLARE] what is for the good of the whole; but it is not the declaration of parliament that makes it so: There must be in every instance, a higher authority, viz. GOD. Should an act of parliament [or Congress] be against any of his natural laws, which are immutably true, their declaration would be contrary to eternal truth, equity and justice, and consequently void: and so it would be adjudged by the parliament itself, when convinced of their mistake."

"Government is founded immediately on the necessities of human nature, and ultimately on the will of God, the author of nature...."

"There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature, and the grant of God almighty; who has given to all men a natural right to be free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so, if they please."

"The same law of nature and of reason is equally obligatory on a democracy, an aristocracy, and a monarchy: Whenever the administrators, in any of those forms, deviate from truth, justice and equity, they verge towards tyranny, and are to be opposed...."

Thomas Paine writes the same things, in his “Rights of Man.”
In there, Paine writes:    

"The error of those who reason by precedents drawn from antiquity, respecting the rights of man, is that they do not go far enough into antiquity.  They do not go the whole way.  [B]ut if we proceed on, we shall at last come out right; we shall come to the time when man came from the hand of his Maker.  We are now got at the origin of man, and at the origin of his rights.  The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man (for it has its origin from the Maker of man) relates not only to the living individuals, but to generations of men succeeding each other.  Every generation is equal in rights to the generations which preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary.  [E]very child born into the world must be considered as deriving its existence from God.  The world is as new to him as it was to the first man that existed, and his natural right in it is of the same kind."

After having seen these quotations, when we read the Constitution we can see that the Constitution itself actually does include some actual wording concerning the laws of nature:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"...[P]romote the general welfare...." This sounds strikingly similar to what Otis wrote above when he said "the end of it [government] is manifestly the good of the whole. Salus populi suprema lex esto [let the welfare of the people be the supreme law], is of the law of nature..."  And it even says in Article I, Section 8 of the federal Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

Again, the "general welfare of the United States." So it seems to me that Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government,” Trenchard and Gordon’s “Cato's Letters” and Blackstonian legal thought as seen in his “Commentaries” are indeed present in the Constitution, even though they are not necessarily quoted word for word, excepting the two examples provided above where they are indeed actually paraphrased. The ideas are very much there, because they were an influence upon the writers and framers of the Constitution.

It might be a common mistake to assume that the Constitution is the highest law of the law, and that it is not subordinate to any other higher law.  This is a false notion.  Terming the Constitution “the highest law” or the “supreme law of the land,” can bring obvious misinterpretation.  What this means is that the Constitution is the highest or supreme HUMAN or MAN-MADE law of the law, and that it too, being man-made law is bound by the laws of nature, as expressed in the above quotes concerning natural law.  For as John Locke says, in the second book of his “Two Treatises of Government,”

“[F]or though it would be beside my present purpose, to enter here into the particulars of the law of nature, or its measures of punishment, yet it is certain there is such a law, and that too as intelligible and plain to a rational creature, and a studier of that law, as the positive laws of commonwealths: nay, possibly plainer as much as reason is easier to be understood, than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words; for so truly are a great part of the municipal laws of countries, which are only so far right, as they are founded on the law of nature, by which they are to be regulated and interpreted.”

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it.  The law, that was to govern Adam, was the same that was to govern all his posterity, the law of reason.”

This being said, the Constitution of the United States of America is America’s man-made fundamental law, that binds all statutory laws made by Congress, just as the different state constitutions are the supreme man-made fundamental laws of the various states, which bind all statutory law made by the state legislatures.  But all these man-made fundamental laws must be held to a higher authority than the laws of man, that higher authority being the laws of nature, for man is truly subordinate to and limited by nature and its laws in obvious ways that need no mention here.

The laws of Nature Do Not Condone Same-Sex Marriage; They Intend and Command Heterosexual Marriage Only

If we look at other animal species, almost every single species, especially among the mammals, selects a companion of the opposite sex and mates with it in order to continue their race.  Continuing one's species, be it among the creatures of the water, air and the earth, or be it the human species, is considered a law of nature, one which each species is commanded to do, by law of nature; and the only natural way to do so is by mating with an individual of the opposite sex; by establishing distinct sexes, nature prohibited, and did not condone members of the same sex coming together and procreating.

Even further, it is another law of nature that mankind is not to be alone; else-wise if man were intended to be alone, woman would not have been created and no one but Adam would still exist today, or if other humans existed, we would avoid each other and live separately as hermits.  Because nature created both male and female, designating both to be companions to each other, and to continue the human species by mating with each other, it follows that mankind, instead of being alone, was prone to and supposed to be attracted to society, fellowshipping and forming companionships with those of his species, especially those of the opposite sex.  Locke affirms such in the second book of his “Two Treatise of Government,” where he writes:

God having made man such a creature, that in his own judgment, it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination, to drive him into society, as well as fitted him with understanding and language to continue and enjoy it. The first society was between man and wife, which gave beginning to that between parents and children; to which, in time, that between master and servant came to be added: and though all these might, and commonly did meet together, and make up but one family, wherein the master or mistress of it had some sort of rule proper to a family; each of these, or all together, came short of political society, as we shall see, if we consider the different ends, ties, and bounds of each of these.”

“…and the law of nature…willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind…”

That man and woman were created with sexual organs for procreation, as well as the natural attraction to each other is another proof that man and woman were to socialize together in the form of a couple and eventually a family.  In order to preserve the human species and make it flourish, socializing with fellow human beings is a necessary law of nature that is intended to bring humans together to live in a state of society, first on the family level and then finally on the large societal level that includes a government agreed upon by all that consent to live under such a society.  Because living in a state of nature has its downfalls and negative attributes, says Locke, ultimately humans are safer, happier, and more prosperous living in a state of society.  Locke confirms this in his second book of his “Two Treatises of Government,” when he writes:

“God having made the parents instruments in his great design of continuing the race of mankind, and the occasions of life to their children; as he hath laid on them an obligation to nourish, preserve, and bring up their offspring…”

Locke, in both books of his “Two Treatises of Government” shows that nature intended marriage, or sociability between two members of the opposite sex, and procreation to go together; marriage and procreation, for the continuation of the human species, are inseparable by the laws of nature and thus naturally go together, marriage being a social state between man and woman, a family being the smallest social unit or a miniature of a society.  Locke writes in the first book,

“…the main intention of nature, which willeth the increase of mankind, and the continuation of the species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of families, with the security of the marriage-bed, as necessary thereunto.”

In the second book, Locke writes,

“Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and though it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another’s bodies, as is necessary to its chief end, procreation; yet it draws with mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common offspring.”

For the end of conjugation between male and female being not barely procreation, but the continuation of the species; this conjugation betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are sustained by those that got them, till they are able to shift and provide for themselves.  This rule, which the infinite wise Maker hath set to the works of his hands, we find the inferior creatures steadily obey.”

As noted above, this is not only the natural law for the human species, but for the species of all creatures.  Nature does not condone same-sex couples, be it in the human species or the inferior non-human species precisely because such couples give nothing to the continuation of the species, and thus do not fulfill this commandment of nature.  Why therefore if nature does not permit or condone same-sex marriage should human laws do so and contradict and oppose nature?  What makes mankind so stubborn, so arrogant, and so self-righteous as to think he/she is supreme over nature, when fact and observation clearly show otherwise? 

It’s been argued by countless people that because homosexuality or transgenderism appears in nature within different species of animals, that it is a natural tendency and therefore is condoned by nature and should be by humans and human law.  This is not so.  The greatest proof of the falsehood of this notion lies in the fact that such cases of homosexuality or transgenderism have remained through-out the past, remain still today, and because of the dictates of nature, will still remain forever an oddity or rarity, an error in nature, while the vast majority of all animal species have had, do have, and will continue to have the natural instincts of nature of seeking a companion and mate of the opposite sex.  And besides, nature has made certain animal species purposefully with either the ability of simultaneous hermaphroditism (having both male and female sex organs) or sequential hermaphroditism, the ability to change their sex later in life so as to be able to survive and preserve their species.  Such examples are found in fish, gastropods, plants, and earthworms.  But these cases found in certain animal species cannot be compared to humans, precisely because these animals were created with this ability, while humans were created in two distinct sexes, set by nature as unalterable, except by outside and unnatural measures such as gender alteration/surgery.  Humans beings cannot of their own natural accord, as can these certain species of animals who maintain the ability of simultaneous or sequential hermaphroditism, change from one sex to another or be born with the sexual organs of both genders, not without the outside help of an unnatural process.  And although such extremely rare cases of humans being born with the genitals of both genders or with other gender identifying organs and characteristics are found within human history, humans were never intended by nature to have this ability, as seen in the creation of the distinct sexes.  Else wise, humans would have been created from the beginning with such abilities from the beginning, with either both male and female reproductive organs or the ability to naturally change sexes of their own accord, without outside help from surgeons and unnaturally altering the physical body, as the aforementioned animal species are able to do of their own accord.  Or, if one is a believer of evolution and natural selection, the survival of the fittest, such rarities of nature as human beings born with the sexual organs or features of both sexes would have prevailed as the fittest for survival had nature intended for it to be so.  But in both cases, be it in creationism or evolution, nature has found the distinction between the sexes to be more fit for survival than those rare cases in which human beings are born without a distinct sex, having the sexual organs or bodily features of both sexes or having the chromosomes of one sex yet the bodily features of the other.  

But even if certain human beings are born with both male and female sexual organs or gender identifying bodily characteristics, or if they identify with the opposite sex more than with their own gender, these cases still remain rare and are thus an oddity, an error in the natural production of the child. Thus, this all shows that nature still does not condone these cases, but are rather resultant from an imperfect, terrestrial life here on an imperfect terrestrial earth, where nature, even though the laws are set, sometimes mutates or creates an oddity due to some natural mess-up.  But because these oddities happen does not establish them as ok and the intention of nature.  If that were the case, then it would be seen as the intention of nature for humans or other animal species to have two heads or 8 fingers/toes instead of the typical one head and 5 fingers/toes, just because some humans or animals are born mutated with two heads or more than five fingers/toes.  It would also mean that because naturally produced sicknesses and diseases like cancer, rabies, the flu, the common cold, yellow fever, small pox, and such occur in life, then that means they should be allowed to flourish and be sanctioned by human laws as acceptable and desired, harming the rights of no one, instead of trying to get rid of them and find cures for such sicknesses.  Should these sicknesses be praised, lauding the continuation of them, as is happening with homosexuality or transgenderism?  I would think not.  The point here is that because rarities and oddities sometimes occur in nature does not mean that they are the intentions of nature and that they should be accepted by the most intellectual and reasonable species on earth, humans, as well as by human laws.   But, just as with humans born mutated or with extra limbs or humans born with or who contract sicknesses, they are still to be treated as human beings with certain rights, even though they may be different from the norm intended by nature.  But because they are to be treated the same as regular human beings does not mean that they now have the right to marry and have sexual relations when nature never intended or has never condoned such a “right;” nature never provided such a “right” to human beings.  For whatever is not a right in a state of nature, is not a right in a state of society.  Is it a right for people with AIDS to go around infecting people with the sickness, spreading it around the world, just because AIDS is a naturally occurring abnormality in nature?  Is it a right for people with AIDS to mate with others without telling them they have the disease, thus giving them the disease without their knowledge?  Is it a right for people with the flu to spread the flu around their society, keeping the sickness alive and accepting it as a natural occurring thing that should be accepted, just because it occurs naturally?  Nature never intended human beings to be unhealthy, else-wise all humans would have been born with such sicknesses and diseases as AIDS, the flu, cancer, a perpetual case of the common cold, etc.; but they weren’t from the beginning and they still aren’t now, even though sometimes these oddities occur in the imperfect, natural world with some unfortunate human beings.  Nature intended all animals species to remain as healthy as possible, to live as long as possible, and to continue the species for as long as possible.  Nature likewise never intended members of the same-sex of any animal species to join together and mate.  Thus, if nature prohibits such, and show indeed that this is not a right, then why should human laws, which are bound by the laws of nature sanction something that nature does not sanction, or consider it a right when nature does not?

If transgenderism and homosexuality in human beings are contrary to the laws of nature, yet humans are willing to condone and sanction such conditions with their laws, then why are humans so selective in which laws of nature they are willing to uphold and which they are willing to violate?  If it is acceptable to allow homosexuality and transgenderism to flourish, recognizing them as acceptable by our human laws, then why do we not find acceptable, justify and legally sanction murder, theft, and ultimately tyranny and arbitrary subjection of others to the will of an individual or individuals, instead of lauding individual freedom and liberty?  These crimes, made criminal by human laws, are all contrary to the laws of nature, each individual retaining a natural freedom and an equality in their rights, some of those rights being life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness?  Why do we condemn these violations of the laws of nature, yet condone and legally sanction such violations of natural law as homosexuality and transgenderism?  Does not murder happen in the natural world just as much as, or even more so than homosexuality occurs?  They are both oddities, and contrary to the laws of nature.  What about theft, which also occurs even more so in the natural world than does homosexuality or transgenderism?  All these are contrary to the laws of nature, nature having intended and thus secured life, property, liberty, distinctions between the sexes, and marriage and procreation between members of the opposite sex, yet humans are willing to sanction by way of their laws, the violation of two of these laws of nature.  If we are permitted to be selective, why not just sanction all violations of the laws of nature, instead of picking and choosing which laws you want to uphold and which you want to break?  Where is the systematic order in that?

Can the Government Define “Marriage,” Because Nature has Already Done So?

Does Congress have the authority to legislate concerning the definition of a legal marriage?  It has definitely done so, whether one thinks such authority lies within its constitutionally granted powers or not.  For in 1878 the federal government threw in its hat in the attempt to define marriage legislatively in respect to the Utah territory in the latter 19th century, concerning polygamous/bigamous marriages.  The Supreme Court determined all of this in 1878 in Reynolds vs. United States, in which Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote the following, asserting that the federal government did indeed have the authority to legislate concerning marriage:

“So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances....”

But it must be remembered that this ruling and the anti-bigamy laws it sought to uphold applied solely to U.S. territories and federally owned land, and not to the states.  Thus, I believe the federal government, while able to legislate concerning marriage in its territories, cannot do so federally for all of the nation, especially the states.  This is because no such authority is to be found in the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution that gives them authority to bind the entire nation by laws passed by Congress in certain specifically enumerated ways, including the states.  Thus, this power to legislate concerning marriage, while applicable to the federal legislature only within the realm of the various U.S. territories, remains in the state governments, respectively.  This much is also proven by the past court rulings concerning DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).  Thus, marriage legislation was intended by the people of the United States to remain a state-by-state issue, as it is still intended today.  But we must next look at the constitutions and bills of rights of each state before we can continue any further.  Since this debate mainly concerns California at the moment, where the issue of Proposition 8 is still being considered, I will only consult the California constitution in order to determine whether same-sex marriages are permitted by the religious freedom clause in the California constitution’s declaration of rights.  This clause, located in Article 1, Section 4, states that
“[f]ree exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed.” However it then states right after this 1st clause that “[t]his liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.”  So it seems that the legislature of California does has the constitutional authority to abridge the right to the free exercise of one’s religious preferences when those preferences are deemed licentious or “inconsistent with the peace or safety of the [s]tate.”

What is interesting is the particular use of the word “licentious,” which according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), is defined as either “[d]isregarding the restraints of chastity; libertine, lascivious, lewd. In modern usage the prevailing sense,” or “[d]isregarding commonly accepted rules, deviating freely from correctness, esp. in matters of grammar or literary style; overstepping customary limits.”  If we are to consider the 2nd definition as the definition implied by the California constitution, same-sex marriage could not be condoned or practiced by the different religions or the state government because same-sex marriages deviates from the customary and commonly accepted rule that marriage is solely between members of the opposite sex.  If we consider the 1st definition, however, as the meaning of “licentious” as used in the California constitution, then it would still mean that religions in California and the state government could not perform or condone same-sex marriages because of the licentious nature of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.  So either way, whichever definition of “licentious” is used, if same-sex marriage is deemed as licentious by the nature of the word and by the nature of same-sex relationships, it is therefore not within the bounds of freedom of religious preference, and is thus prohibited by law.  However, there is no clear definition of how “licentious” is used in the California constitution, therefore, there can be no sure way of knowing whether same-sex marriage could be deemed as licentious or not.  Some synonyms of “licentious,” according to the OED, are wanton, libertine, loose, smicker, wide, and slight, most of which have a sense of immorality, which can most definitely be applied to same-sex relationships or homosexuality.  The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “moral” as the following:

1.)  “Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.”
2.)  “Concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society.”
3.)  “Holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.”
4.)  “Derived from or based on ethical principles or a sense of these.”

Given the nature of English derivational patterns, the prefix –im in “immoral” implies the opposite or the negation of the original prefix-less word.  Thus, the word “immoral” means the very opposite of the above definitions.  The New Oxford American Dictionary also gives “licentious” as a synonym of “immoral.”  Hence, whichever way you look at the word “immoral,” whether it is connected to sexual behavior or not, in which case “licentious” is directly related to “immoral” if “immoral” is connected to sexual behavior, the California constitution gives the authority to the California legislature to make laws concerning the prohibition or non-sanctioning of immoral acts, acts such as murder and theft, or as we shall presently see, sexually inappropriate acts and marriage acts that are deemed licentious and thus also immoral.  So it seems that the word “licentious” would fall as a category under the large and more encompassing term “immoral,” “licentious” being connected to sexually inappropriate acts, or as we shall soon see, marriage acts as well.  Thus a licentious act is indeed considered an immoral act.  And given the nature of the national Constitution, in that it also may not sanction acts that are contrary to and deemed immoral or licentious by the laws of nature, the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause cannot apply to the Prop 8 case in California, as invoked by Judge Vaughn Walker in his ruling against Prop 8.  No man-made law, fundamental and thus constitutional, or statutory, whether it be on the national level or the state level, can legally condone and protect behaviors or practices that are forbidden by and contrary to the laws of nature.  Therefore, whatever isn’t a right in a state of nature cannot be considered a right in a state of society, and thus there can be no legal protection of same-sex marriage as a right or privilege by the national Constitution (including the 14th Amendment) or any state constitution, nor by any national, state, or local statutory law.

Continuing with the semantics of “licentious” and “immoral,” the California legal code makes a connection between these two words in Section 1527.3, when it says,

Any loss arising out of licentious, immoral, or sexual behavior on the part of a foster parent intended to lead to, or culminating in, any sexual act.”

Indeed, Connecticut lawyer, delegate to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Oliver Ellsworth, wrote the following in his Landholder essays, written in favor of adopting the new Constitution of 1787, particularly in the 7th Landholder essay:

“But while I assert the right of religious liberty; I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion.  It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and public detriment.”

It would appear in Ellsworth’s opinion, which is the opinion of a Supreme Court Chief Justice, albeit not from any Supreme Court case he presided on, yet of high esteem and respect all the same for his role in American history and law, that immoralities are indeed under the realm of authorized legislation of the state governments, according to the laws and constitution of each state.  Given the appearance of the word “licentious” in the specific context within the California constitution and the tie of “licentious” to “immorality,” it would seem that same-sex marriage could indeed be considered “immoral” and “licentious” and therefore, in the very least, not worth the state government’s condonation or sanction.

But, again, the California constitution itself gives no hint as to what “licentious” means and it gives no specific written definition of the word.  So, we are left to the statutory laws of the California legislature to show us what has been deemed “licentious” and thus “immoral” behavior that is not permitted under freedom of religious preference.

In California, it is a felony to be caught involved in a polygamous/bigamous marriage.  The California legal code says the following concerning polygamy/bigamy:

Section 281.  “(a) Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries any other person, except in the cases specified in Section 282, is guilty of bigamy.” 

Section 283.  “Bigamy is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.”

Section 284.  “Every person who knowingly and willfully marries the husband or wife of another, in any case in which such husband or wife would be punishable under the provisions of this chapter, is punishable by fine not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison.”

In light of these anti-bigamy laws, it could be said that California has deemed polygamous/bigamous marriages as “licentious” and hence immoral, meaning no religion can claim to have the right to marry individuals in polygamous relationships under liberty of conscious.  Or if bigamous/polygamous marriages be not deemed “licentious” and thus not immoral, then perhaps it would fall under the category of “inconsistent with the peace or safety of the [s]tate.”  Either way, it has been determined by the California legislature that polygamous/bigamous marriage constitutes either a licentious act or an act that is inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state, and is therefore not permitted under the guise of freedom of religious preference and the freedom to exercise one’s religious preferences.  Thus, we have one form of marriage that is not recognized by California law because it is either “licentious” or inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.  Thus, if Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision in Prop 8, invoking the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection clause” stands, in that same-sex couples are being denied their right to marry and have that marriage recognized by the state while heterosexual couples aren’t, meaning same-sex married couples are being denied the equal protection of the law, it would logically and naturally follow that polygamous/bigamous married couples are also having their constitutional rights denied as well.  Such laws as those above would have to be deemed violations of the same “equal protection clause” of the 14th Amendment and thus are void and must be ruled unconstitutional.  But why didn’t Judge Walker address this issue in his Prop 8 ruling?  The topic was marriage laws, even though bigamous marriage wasn’t being challenged.  Perhaps he is a proponent of the bigamy laws in California?  I am obviously not Judge Walker, so I cannot say whether he is or is not.  But his silence on the issue of bigamous marriage laws and penalties is interesting to note.

What about marriages between children under the age of 18?  Are those permitted under California law?  The answer is yes, only if the two individual minors seeking marriage have consent from their legal guardians, or if no guardians are present or are incapable of consenting, then the courts may consent for the minor(s) seeking marriage.  Can two minors choose to marry without the consent of their legal guardians, who are present and fully capable of consenting, or can an adult choose to legally marry a minor who’s legal guarding, again present and capable of consenting, did not consent to the marriage, and have such a marriage be recognized by the state?  No, because the California legal code says the following about marriage:

308.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

300.  “(a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).
Section 301.  “An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.”

302.  (a) An unmarried male or female under the age of 18 years is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.
   (b) The court order and written consent of the parents of each underage person, or of one of the parents or the guardian of each underage person shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at the time the marriage license is issued.”

303.  If it appears to the satisfaction of the court by application of a minor that the minor requires a written consent to marry and that the minor has no parent or has no parent capable of consenting, the court may make an order consenting to the issuance of a marriage license and granting permission to the minor to marry. The order shall be filed with the clerk of the court and a certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at the time the marriage license is issued.”

Can religions marry two minors (or one minor and one adult) who’s legal guardians are present and capable of consenting, yet do not consent to the marriage, and have this “marriage” be recognized by the state?  No, such a “marriage” cannot and would not be recognized by the state government, and therefore religions do not have license to perform such “marriages” under the guise of liberty of conscience and have them recognized by the state, which means that such “marriages” are either licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state.  Thus, it must follow that Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling also makes this law unconstitutional on 14th Amendment, “equal protection clause” grounds and thus void.

What about incestuous marriages?   Are those legal under the guise of liberty of conscience, or indeed, “marriage equality?”  According to California Penal Code, in Section 285,

“Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or who being 14 years of age or older, commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.”

Section 11160:
“(4) The report shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
(d) For the purposes of this section, "assaultive or abusive conduct" shall include any of the following offenses:
(10) Incest, in violation of Section 285.”

We see that incestuous marriages are prohibited by California law, meaning any religion attempting to claim that the right to perform incestuous marriages under the guise of liberty of conscience cannot assert such.  This therefore means that the California legislature has taken upon itself to deem incestuous marriages as either licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state.  So there are at least three forms of marriage thus far that the state of California has taken upon itself to prohibit in any way, shape or form, especially under the guise of liberty of conscience, deeming them either licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state.  Cannot same-sex marriage fit under the same category?  If not, and it fits under category of “marriage equality,” one which the state cannot ban because it denies to people in the state the equal protection of the laws, as Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in his Prop 8 ruling, then it would follow that supporters of the legalization of same-sex marriages in the various states would also be natural supporters of the legalization of:
1.)  polygamous/bigamous marriages,
2.)  marriages of either two minors or one minor and one adult, who’s legal guardians do not consent to the marriage,
3.)  and incestuous marriages.

But are same-sex marriage proponents also proponents of these 3 types of marriages?  If California law can ban these three types of marriages as not meeting the definition of a state approved marriage, denying people the equal protection of the law, can it not also ban same-sex marriages or legislate that a same-sex marriage does not meet the state approved criteria for a marriage?  Let me make it clear that I am not calling for punishment for performed same-sex marriages, as the three aforementioned types of marriages are punishable by fines and prison time; I am merely stating that if the three aforementioned types of marriages do not fit the state approved definition of a legal marriage, and the state has the authority to declare them unapproved, then does it not follow that the state does have the legal authority to define a “marriage?”  And if the state can indeed legally define what constitutes a legal marriage without violating the 14th Amendment and it’s equal protection clause, then it can most assuredly define a marriage as between one man and one woman, therefore not approving same-sex marriages.  If these three types of legally prohibited marriages are deemed either “licentious” and thus immoral, or an act “inconsistent with the peace or safety of the [s]tate,” or both at the same time, then it would logically follow that same-sex marriage can also legally fit into these categories and thus can be legally prohibited by law, or in the very least, not sanctioned as a state approved marriage.  But where, I ask, are all the proponents of same-sex marriage when these three types of marriages come up in discussion and why are they not opposing the legal ban on them?  Why is the opposition to these three types of prohibited marriages not as strong, or indeed non-existent from those proponents of “marriage equality” and same-sex marriage?  Why do these laws still remain in place if the state governments maintain no authority to legally define marriage? 

It would be silly to even contemplate inter-species marriage, because it most definitely does not match the state’s definition of marriage, so while I muse upon the subject of it in this treatise, I believe it is already established that such unions would not be recognized as legal marriages and thus are prohibited, perhaps not by law per say, but by nature that they do not meet the state’s implied definition of legally approved marriages as between human beings, a set down in the California legal code.  Does nature approve of such interspecies marriages?  I think the obvious answer is no.  Nature intended and decreed that unions between members of the opposite sex remain in the same species; humans are for humans, birds for birds, ants for ants, fish for fish, dogs for dogs, and elephants for elephants.  One of Ancient Greece’s horror stories, or myths, about the Minotaur is historical proof of society’s abhorrence and recognition of the unnaturalness of interspecies marriage and mating.  Thus, nature does not agree with some of mankind’s interpretation of nature’s laws concerning marriage and marriage equality.  Nature does not approve of interspecies marriage, nor same-sex marriage, and thus neither can the laws of humans. 

We therefore see that all these forms of marriages discussed, being not approved as legal marriages, some even prohibited outright by positive law and attached with a criminal punishment, they are therefore not able to be both performed by religions and have them recognized as legal marriage under the guise of liberty of conscience.  And if California does not have authority to legally define a state approved marriage, then it must follow that all of these marriage types discussed are just as inherently permissible as same-sex marriage is.

Perhaps it might be argued by some that same-sex marriage is not the same as bigamous marriage, marriages between minors, or incestuous marriage.  Maybe so; but the same argument could be made if the topic was the legalization of bigamous marriages.  Bigamous marriages have no inherent relation to marriages between minors or incestuous marriages; indeed, aside from the connection that the word “marriage” brings between all of these prohibited marriages,  none of them, including same-sex marriage are inherently related or similar in anyway.  More than one legal spouse has no relation to marriages between minors or marriage between closely related individuals, just as a spouse of the same sex has no relation to either of the other type of marriages, save the natural tie that the word "marriage" includes.  So this argument will not work, because none of these different types of marriages discussed thus far have any inherent relations or similarities in them, yet they are all prohibited and not recognized as legal marriages, except for same-sex marriage, which is currently under question.

From this discussion of legally recognized marriages and non-legally recognized marriages, some of which are deemed criminal, due to Article 1, Section 4 of the California constitution, I believe that if California has the legal authority to deemed certain kinds of marriages, such as polygamous/bigamous marriages, marriages between two minors who’s legal guardians do not consent to the marriage, incestuous marriages, and inter-species marriages as licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state, and refuse to recognize such “marriages” as legally approved, then it has the authority to do the same with same-sex marriage, despite the 14th Amendment “equal protection clause” found in the federal Constitution.  And for consistency’s sake, if California’s legislature, judicial branch, and other governmental authorities insist that California has no such authority to deny recognition of same-sex “marriages” as truly legal marriages, then it must also admit that it has no authority to deny recognition as a legal marriage, these other four types of prohibited marriages.  And again, seeing as bigamous marriages, marriages of minors, and incestuous marriages are deemed criminal, attached with a criminal punishment of a fine and/or imprisonment, yet same-sex marriages and inter-species marriages are not, I am not calling for such criminal punishments to be attached to the latter two types of marriages.  Rather, I attempt to point out that though there are no criminal punishments attached to same-sex and inter-species marriages, they are still not recognized as legally recognized and binding marriages by the state.  And because there are no seeming criminal punishments attached to these two types of marriages as of yet, religions who perform them and the individuals involved in them may not be punished or prohibited from doing so; yet such “marriages,” deemed so by the religion performing them will not be deemed as legally approved marriages by the state, and thus those involved in the marriage will not receive the same benefits as those whose marriage meets the criteria for a legally approved marriage.

Keeping all this information on marriages in California in mind, the governments of the states are in an interesting quandary, for all of them have some prohibition of bigamous marriages, marriages between minors, incestuous marriages, and inter-species marriages, some with punishments attached to them as well.  We therefore see that the states have in the very least asserted such authority to legislate concerning marriage by making such legislation.  Whether each state has the constitutional authority to do so or not will inevitably depend on each state’s constitution, but I have established that California clearly has that authority via its constitution. They cannot prohibit churches from “marrying” homosexual partners because the right to perform those marriages remains within the realm of the 1st Amendment to the federal Constitution, as well as the different bills of rights of the different states providing freedom of religious belief and practice, and that no laws shall abridge such rights.  Neither can the states punish such religions that choose to contradict the laws of nature by “marrying” same-sex couples or the homosexual individuals who are married, under the same legal reasoning that they cannot legally prevent them from doing so.  But the state governments also cannot sanction or recognize such marriages because they are violations of the laws of nature, being that human laws cannot contradict the laws of nature.  So what are the states to do?  Human beings are equal in their rights, so much as those rights are truly rights established and recognized by nature.  But nature has not made all equal in everything, be it in material possessions, characteristics and traits, or even between the sexes.  Males have organs and characteristics that females do not, while females have organs and characteristics males do not.  It is true that all men and women are equal in their rights, but only if those rights are truly rights recognized by nature as rights.  Everyone has the right and ability to marry and procreate, but only within the restrictions set down by nature.  It is also true that all mankind has it’s agency, or freedom to choose good or evil, or in this case, the freedom to choose to obey and recognize the laws of nature or to disobey and contradict them.  But either way, consequences follow each choice we make, whether we choose to obey the laws of nature or to not obey them, consequences which we don’t always choose or desire, and which we can’t always foresee.

And what of homosexual partners, who cannot by themselves, procreate; may they then adopt a child, according to the laws of nature?  The answer is yet again, no.  This is because procreation, being naturally prohibited and impossible in a homosexual relationship, two members of the same sex being unable to procreate of their own accord with each other, so too must the laws of mankind abide by the laws of nature that forbid homosexual partners to procreate and have children.  Thus, because the laws of nature prohibit homosexual partners from having their own children of their own accord, without the help of outside practices and forces, such as artificial insemination, so too must the laws of mankind and their societies prohibit homosexual partners from adopting or practice artificial insemination.  Being that a family is meant by nature to consist of at least one husband and one wife, children must have this environment to grow up in, to the greatest possible extent (some parents may die soon after birth, and thus leave the family with only one parent).  This is the law of nature, because the law of nature tells man and woman to come together to form a small society, or family, and continue the species by procreating.  Because human laws cannot contradict the laws of nature, human laws may not allow or condone same-sex marriages or the adoption and raising of children in the environment of a same-sex partnership.

As has been stated, churches, by right of the 1st Amendment and the various bills of rights of the different states are allowed to “marry” anyone they please, as long as the two individuals are two or more consenting adults and as long as those marriages are not expressively prohibited by the law, with attachments of criminal or civil punishments.  Yet because marriage is defined as between members of the opposite sex by nature, human governments and their laws must abide by those limits nature has set, and must not contradict them.  Therefore, human governments have the natural right to define a marriage, yet cannot deny anyone that meets the requirements nature has set for marriage, their right and ability to marry, begin a family, and procreate.  So while religions may marry whichever adults they please, provided the marriage is not expressively forbidden by law and attached with a criminal or civil penalty, they will not always be, or not always able to be recognized by the human laws and governments, because of the limits nature has placed on humans and their laws.  That marriage is a fundamental right and law by nature has been, and will be further shown.  Thus, the fundamental right of “marriage equality” means only that adult individuals of the opposite sex may enter into the marriage contract, regardless of age (excepting those under the legal age of adulthood, as set by society), religions, height, race and color of skin, or financial and social background.  Anyone can marry whomever they please, for as long as they please, and have that marriage be sanctioned by the different state governments as long as that marriage meets the requirements established by the laws of nature, and hence the laws of man.  This is what is truly meant by “marriage equality,” not that every individual has the right to marry whomever or whatever they please, regardless of gender or species, and have that marriage sanctioned by the laws of nature and the laws of mankind.

It all boils down to whether you accept Locke and his arguments in favor of liberty and equality, and the natural freedom of mankind, as well as those espoused by Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Trenchard and Gordon, etc.  Even they set limits to mankind’s rights and freedom, and never once indicated that mankind was free to do whatever he/she liked or desired, even in a state of nature.  If you accept the opinions of these men, then you accept that there is no such thing as a right to homosexual marriage, because nature never created such a right.  To say otherwise would be a misinterpretation of the laws of nature and the true natural right to marriage each and every man and woman actually has, that of marrying a member(s) of the opposite sex.  If you accept Locke, Paine, Jefferson, Adams and such, then you must accept the truthfulness of the Bible, even if only from it’s historical perspective, all religion aside, for they did, and they based their entire philosophy of rights off of it, it being an important source for proving the existence of our rights.  If you don’t accept the Bible, even in its historical aspect, then you undermine everything Locke and the others sought for, and you ultimately must find another source so widely accepted and established so as to point out the rights of mankind, which you will have a hard time finding, especially one as good as the Bible.

So be careful of ridiculing the Bible.  It might actually undermine your thirst for freedom and liberty much more than you think it would.  And even if one does not believe in a creation story with a creator, but believes in a evolutionary process, or even if one were to mix the two, mixing science with religion, (I believe the two are inseparable; I believe God is the greatest scientist there ever was!) the fact still remains that no matter how human beings came into existence, there are only two distinct sexes, and all that has been said about the laws of nature still holds true, as does the annals of history, which also agrees with nature.  So calling all that has been said religions mumbo-jumbo is contrary to the point, because whether it be religious or secular, it still holds true.  But though the Bible be taken purely as an historical source, outlining the history of the human species, nature, throughout the entire history of the human species on earth never intended man to mate and enter into a conjugal relationship with another man, or woman with woman.  And nor was a man ever meant to be woman, or a woman to be a man.   The history of mankind on the earth has proven this, if one will but look into its annals.  And though exceptions may be found where individuals or societies accepted behaviors contrary to the laws of nature, as there are today, exceptions remain only those, exceptions, while nature still only condones conjugal relationships between members of the opposite sex, as well as the perpetual remaining of people as males and females as they are born.   But because there may be situations where a male is born attracted to other males, females attracted to other females, or where males identify with the female sex more or feel they are truly females or females feel they are males, does not mean that while they suffer from these conditions and may lead such lifestyles they are to be denied their true natural and civil rights.  For just as humans born defected in other natural ways, such as blind, deaf, mentally slow and retarded, with flipper arms or no legs, extra limbs, with sicknesses, etc. are still human beings, naturally free and equal in their rights, so too are humans born with homosexual and/or transgender desires or who turn to such lifestyles later on in their lives.  We are all human beings, no matter how we may be born or how we may turn out, and thus we all retain our natural freedom and equality in rights, those both natural and civil.  But it must be remembered that such lifestyles and desires never were, nor ever will be condoned or supported by nature.  And because individuals may be born with homosexual and/or transgender desires, or those who develop such desires, even though they retain their natural freedom and equality in rights, it still remains that such desires are contrary to the laws of nature, and if one continues to live such a lifestyle, the consequences of violating such laws of nature will necessarily follow.  What is not a right in a state of nature or has no connection to a right in a state of nature can never be considered a right in a state of society.  And mankind, whether in a state of nature or in a state of society, is forever bound by the laws of nature, even the governments of mankind.  And the time when societies and their governments, as well as individuals choose willingly to violate the laws of nature is the time when the consequences of doing so will come upon such societies and governments.

Of Liberty and Agency, and the Natural Limits to Liberty and Rights

Liberty and Agency are not entirely synonymous.  There is a fundamental difference between the two.  Agency is the freedom to choose one of two or more choices, to make a choice and do something and receive and live with the consequences that necessarily follow.  You cannot take the choice away from the individual, just as you can't take the consequences away from the choice made.  Everyone has the agency to choose good or evil, right or wrong, to follow the laws or not.  Liberty, on the other hand, pertains to living free, without being chained by arbitrary and despotic laws, laws made by humans and humans alone. 

Liberty does not pertain to the laws of nature, for those are set and unalterable, and one's life must be lived within their bounds.  Liberty is the freedom to live one's life as desired, according to the laws of both nature and society, so long as those societal laws do not trample or abridged the natural and civil rights of the individual.  But liberty does not equate to doing whatever you please whenever and however you please.  Nature's laws establish limits to our liberty; we are not at liberty to just fly up in the sky all by ourselves without a means of manipulating gravity, ignoring or abolishing the laws of gravity just because we will it.  We can't just decide as a human race to have two days of sun with no night in between.  We can’t just decide that we all want the earth to follow a different rotation pattern.  We can’t pass a law and actually make the sun revolve around the earth instead of the other way around. We can’t just turn any element into gold.  We can't just ignore set natural, physical laws or will them to be done away with.  Indeed, we can't violate any of these physical laws of nature without having a higher scientific knowledge of how to manipulate these set natural laws of the earth and universe (which knowledge I firmly believe God has), which knowledge of higher scientific laws we have gained in a small degree, but in actuality, we have gained but very little.  There are still natural laws we have no knowledge how to manipulate; and let it be remembered that though the laws are manipulated, they are never suspended or done away with, but exist for eternally.  Take that of the airplane and gravitation.  Humans have gained the scientific knowledge of how to manipulate gravity, but even though manipulation of the set natural law of gravitation happens, that set natural law of gravitation still remains, and the minute its manipulation via higher scientific knowledge stops, gravitation resumes.  This happens if an airplane suddenly stops mid flight and suddenly drops or gradually descends to earth.  This higher scientific knowledge and the example of the airplane and gravitation comes from James E. Talmage's "Jesus the Christ."  However, do not let it be inferred from this existence of a higher scientific knowledge that allows mankind to manipulate, yet not destroy, set natural laws that sex change operations and homosexuality are manipulations of set natural laws also.  This is a false notion, for it violates the very fact that we were made in the image of our Creator, first man, and then woman.  And if man and woman are made in the image of their Creator, then this necessarily and reasonably means that are Creator is not both male and female at the same time, or is capable of changing His sex, but rather, the distinction of the male and female sex predates our sojourn here on earth, and that man was created in the image of his male Creator, while woman was created in the image of a female, even though both were physically created by one Creator being.  If our Creator created both male and female here on earth, then the distinction of male and female must necessarily and naturally exist in the realm where the Creator being dwells, a distinction that is eternal.  If the Creator being were both male and female at the same time, He would have created mankind in His express image, both male and female simultaneously.  Or if the Creator able to switch His sex between male and female, then He would have created mankind in the same manner, with the ability to change his/her sex on demand.  Thus, before man was in existence on this earth, there must have been an eternal distinction between the sexes, and mankind was made in the image of his/her Creator, first male in the image of the male, and then female in the image of the female counterpart to the Creator.  It is perfectly reasonable to assume and believe that if the Creator established man and woman to come together in conjugal ceremony for the purpose of completing each other and being social, as well as the purpose of procreation and the survival of the species, that the Creator lives under such a law Himself and thus has sought society as well with a His female, completing counterpart and with His own children, His family?  But enough of this digression; let us return to the issue at hand concerning liberty and agency.

Nature has set limits to the liberty of mankind, and as such, we are not at perfect liberty to do as we please without being subject to laws.  And just as nature has set limits to liberty, so to does society and human laws set limits to liberty, for the good, protection and prosperity of society and the human species, especially for the individuals that comprise society and the human species.  And as long as those limits to liberty don’t abridge the natural rights of mankind, or as long as governments don’t surpass the limits set to chain it and keep it at bay, as set by the people who establish it, such as in a constitution and statutory laws, then such limits on the liberty of mankind are necessary and approved by nature.  Such limits come in the form of societal laws that make it criminal for individuals and governments alike to violate, be it murder, theft, or arbitrary, unlimited and tyrannical government.

Locke explains such limits to liberty in the second book of his “Two Treatises of Government,” when he writes, speaking of a state of nature:

“‎But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontrolable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than it's bare preservation calls for it.  The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy another...

Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice to an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”

“‎But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence…the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone.”!!!!

And if there be limits to our liberty, both in a state of nature and within society, there are limits to our rights as well, both those natural
and civil.  For example, the right to life is not absolute or unlimited.  It cannot be said that a person has the right to live no matter what his choice is.  Let’s say an individual decided to throw himself head first off a cliff face and plunge 1000 feet to his death.  When he/she comes to in the afterlife, can it be said the he/she can proclaim his death false and arbitrary, because he has the right to life, no matter what he may or may not do to bring about his death?  Can he/she demand that because one has the natural right to life, that death be prohibited?  No, such would be seen as an idiotic demand, because natural death or self-inflicted is the limit to one’s natural right to life.  One’s natural right to life merely means no one can arbitrarily take it from the individual. Can it be said that because a man or a woman has the natural right to property, that such a right entails claiming the entire earth and its oceans as the sole property of that individual, denying any property and sustenance to every other human inhabitant of the earth?  Not only does John Locke answer this question for us in his first “Treatise,” but I think the reasonable mind would answer a resounding “No!” to such a ridiculous assertion.  Here is another limit set by nature against a natural right that all mankind retains.  All mankind was created to inherit the earth in common, or rather, everyone has a right to some portion of it, to claim some portion of it as one’s private property and utilize it freely, without violating the limits set by nature and of society as to the use of the land.  Even our civil rights have limits set by society.  Take the right to adulthood, or the right to suffrage.  These are both civil rights, having their basis in natural rights, but have become civil because of the entrance of individuals into society.  American society has set the legal age for adulthood at 18 years of age, while to be able to exercise one’s right to suffrage, one must also be an adult of 18 years of age.  Another limit to both our natural and our civil rights is that we do not have the right to exercise these rights freely when the exercising of those rights harms or infringes in any way upon the rights of others or prevents others from exercising their own natural and civil rights.  But in the case of marriage equality, or rather, homosexual marriage, there is no right to such a union, and thus, the exercising of society and governments to define a marriage as between members of the opposite sex does not infringe upon the rights of those who identify themselves as homosexual, being that there never was nor ever will be a right to same-sex marriage, as has been proven by nature and the continued existence of two distinct sexes and the continuing status of homosexuality as an rare phenomenon. 

Thus, nature has set the limit to the right to marriage, procreation, and the creation of a family to those of members of the opposite sex, and has given no such right to members of the same-sex.  The history of the human species and all other animal species on this planet proves this, excepting those species that were created purposefully from the beginning with the ability to change sexes or with the ability to maintain both male and female sex organs, as aforementioned, and which category the human species does not fall into.  It is nature’s intention, as well as the purpose of government to ensure that maximum individual liberty be enjoyed by the individuals who make up society.  Yet maximum liberty does not equate to complete and unlimited liberty, or license, as has been shown.  There are natural and societal limits placed on liberty that are necessary and inevitable, as has been shown.  Yet it still remains that while limits are set to individual liberty and individual rights, set by both nature and society, nature has ruled that the maximum individual liberty possible be enjoyed, ensured, and protected by not only nature itself, but government as well.

It is also claimed by some that the marriage of two homosexual individuals does no harm to society; this is not true, because the allowance and continuation of such would violate the great law of nature that requires the human species to continue to grow.  It has been said before that no man is an island.  This is entirely true.  Each time we make a decision, we ultimately affect others, be it in the present or sometime in the future.  Every time two homosexual individuals get married and create a family, one child less is permitted to enter the earth to claim his/her inheritance and life.  Imagine if 100,000,000 homosexual couples in the world got married and created a family; This would hinder the growth of the human species, making it so that at least 100,000,000 children would be denied access to life on earth, stopping the growth of humanity, because those two same-sex individuals now approved to be married cannot procreate and bring children into the world.  The failure of the human species to grow and inherit the earth affects the entire human species, as well as the societies that inhabit the different parts of the world.  This is not solely religious preaching; this is scientific and natural fact.  Perhaps some might counter this by saying all those homosexual "married" couples only need do is have sexual relations with females so as to continue the survival of the species.  I cannot even imagine allowing such drunken orgies of sexual relations between individuals of the opposite sex who have no affection for each other, only for continuation of the species!  Such a suggestion is just plain sickening and unnatural!  For sexual relations between members of the opposite sex are not solely for procreational purposes.  Rather, they are to bring the two members of the opposite sex, come together for a myriad of reasons, including society and socializing, as well as procreation and continuation of the species, together, to form a strong emotional and physical bond together, to strengthen their love for each other, a love that is so much deeper and stronger than mere physical attraction.  Therefore, purposes of sexual relations between two members of the opposite sex are thus twofold, to accomplish the natural laws of mankind seeking society and mankind continuing the species.  Sexual relations help mankind in their seeking for society and in continuing the species.  In addition, if it is natural law that mankind form families, small units of society made up of members of the opposite sex, as well as larger societies made up of families comprised of members of the opposite sex, then it is a natural law and thus a natural right that children born into these families have both members of the opposite sex for parents, guardians, and role models, as much as possible in a fallible, imperfect terrestrial world of death and suffering such as ours.  Natural causes sometimes deny us our natural rights, for we live in an imperfect world.  Sometimes this comes in the form of natural death, suffering, sickness, and loss of property due to natural calamities.  Though we have a right to life and property, sometimes these rights are denied by natural circumstances, which we have no control over.  But human beings may never deny mankind his/her natural rights, for such is an artificial system of violation of rights, not natural causes.  Thus, when parents die, children may possibly be denied their natural right to have both parents of the opposite sex as guardians and role models, but such is life natural.  But two homosexual partners adopting a baby or child is an artificial denial of the child's natural right to parents of the opposite sex, a denial by human agents.  And such is a violation of that right of the child.  The same goes for those parents of the opposite sex who fail in their duty to the child in providing them their natural right of guardians and role models, and such should be punishable by law.  And it often is in America.  Children adopted into families comprised of members of the same sex do not have this natural right of theirs, to have parents, guardians, and role models of the opposite sex for them to imitate so as to fit into society properly, and learn properly how to fit into their roles of either a man or a woman, both natural roles and societal roles.  For remember, nature has set the distinction of the sexes, and that distinction and one's sex is eternal.  For if you came into the world as one sex, in the image of the Creator, you must have existed prior to coming to earth as a distinct sex.  And if you existed prior to this world as a distinct sex, you must exist after this world as a distinct sex.

It might be said by some that a state government defining marriage as between the union of members of the opposite sex is tyrannical.  To call such a definition tyrannical would be to call nature a tyrant, for it is nature alone that defines a marriage as between members of the opposite sex.  If such a definition is tyrannical or inequal, then nature itself much be the tyrant and the one responsible for the inequality.  But since when has nature ever been completely equal?  Has nature provided both males and females with both male and female sex organs to all human beings?  Has nature provided human beings with gills as well as lungs, so that they may breath underwater?  Has nature provided fish with lungs as well as gills?  Has nature provided the male human being with the ability to bear and give birth to children?  I believe the obvious answers to these questions are no.  Yet equality would state that all these things must happen, yet nature has not saw it fit to do so.  Thus, nature, in its infinite wisdom has given to some what they need to survive, continue their species, while giving to others of the same species their own abilities that allow them to survive and continue their species, be it within the human species or any other animal species.  It should be remembered that the male is incomplete in life without the female, and vice versa.  This is especially so if it is a natural law for mankind to be sociable and form small units of society, families, as well as larger forms of society made up of families.  If it is tyrannical that nature has defined a union for the purpose of procreation and sociability, i.e. marriage, is it not equally tyrannical that nature has decided that human beings are to have one head and two arms?  What if society all the sudden decides that it’s a right to be able to have two stomachs, and that it is tyrannical and unequal for humans not to have two stomachs?  Are the other laws of nature deemed tyrannical, such as only having one stomach, one head, two arms, if the definition of marriage as between members of the opposite sex is tyrannical?  Is it also tyrannical that nature has decided that earth is to revolve around the sun, instead of the sun revolving around the earth?  Human beings seem to only have a problem with the laws of nature when they run contrary to what they may desire in their all too typical bouts of arrogance, all importance and feelings of supremacy.  Human beings would doubtless cite the laws of nature as a source of our natural and civil rights, such as life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness; yet when the laws of nature run contrary to their own self-righteous opinions and impossible desires, the laws of nature are swept under the rug in an attempt to hide them from view, and are only let out when they are of benefit to mankind and mankind's own agendas.  Is nature to be denied in this way, yet cited when we benefit from it?  Will nature tolerate such selectivity in recognition of its laws from the very creatures it brought forth into existence? 

Of the True Rights of Human Beings, Homosexuals, Transgenders, and Heterosexuals Alike

I believe I have provided sufficient evidence to show that nature never has nor ever will condone the marriage and creation of a family between two or more homosexual individuals.  But, the fact still remains that homosexual feelings and transgender feelings still exist and are very much real, being a mutation or oddity of nature in a fallible, terrestrial world.  Does that mean that those individuals who suffer from such rarities should be dehumanized and ostracized by society?  No, it does not!  They are still human beings, humans that retain their natural and civil rights!  They should not be meant to feel bad, bullied, or damned because they may happen to suffer from one of the rarities found on earth, just as someone suffering from cancer should not be made to feel bad or damned because of their condition.  However, individuals who suffer from homosexual or transgender tendencies must, like those who have cancer or other illnesses, attempt to make themselves right, or fix their predicament to the best of their ability, and seek to be in harmony with the laws of nature.  It may not happen in this life, just as we have yet to find a cure for cancer, AIDS, or even the common cold.  But, just as we don’t succumb to those rare illnesses, why should we encourage and succumb to homosexuality or transgender feelings, instead of seeking to do our best to fix the predicament?  Ultimately, for those who believe in God, and a just and merciful God at that, the things we are unable to do in this life to better ourselves, not because of lack of trying, but because we just aren’t physically capable of doing so, will be made up and taken into consideration by God, or Christ’s Atonement, for those who believe in Christianity.  We must not deny to individuals who suffer from natural oddities or rarities the true natural and civil rights that they retain as human beings.  But, we must remember that it never was a right nor ever will be a right for members of the same-sex to marry, form a family, and procreate, because it is impossible in nature to do so, having been prohibited by nature in the establishment of two distinct sexes with distinct roles in life and society.  Therefore, there is no such thing as marriage equality between individuals who do not meet the requirements set by nature for marriage and the creation of a family.  Members of the opposite sex can marry whomever they please, and have as large or small a family as they please, even those members of the opposite sex who may not be capable of procreating because of some natural defect in their bodies.  That is one of mankind’s true natural rights.  It is not religions or humans that deny this right to members of the same sex, but rather, nature is the culprit.  Blame nature if you feel the need to place blame on someone or something.  I realize that this opinion, or what I believe to be a truth, is not necessarily the most popular in the eyes of society.  But then again, since when has truth, the laws of nature, or the rights of mankind been popular in the eyes of mankind?  In John Locke’s time it wasn’t; in the time of America’s birth it wasn’t.  Only with the birth of America and its establishment of its government on these principles has truth, the laws of nature, and the rights of mankind become anything close to popular in the world.  And it seems now that these topics have become so popular that rights talk has gone to the anarchic extreme, to the point where everything is labeled a right, despite the laws of nature and mankind, and where there are no more limits or bounds to liberty and rights, just as in the past there were no limits or bounds to tyranny and arbitrary government.  It will soon reach the point where order ceases to exist, all because people want to do what they please, and have no limits or boundaries, and to hell with society, the human species, natural law, fundamental law, and statutory law.  Liberty, although a natural right, is not unlimited or unlimitable.  And just as the issue of liberty and equality in rights was not popular in times long ago, so to it seems we have entered the phase in history when mankind has become drunk with the concept of liberty, where it is no longer popular to speak of natural limits to liberty and our rights, limits set by nature.  But all this only goes to show the truth in the often quoted maxim, “what is right is not always popular; and what is popular is not always right.”

So I ask again, do homosexuals and transgender individuals have rights?  For God’s sake, the answer is a resounding YES!, to which reason, observation and fact cannot but prove.  They have their natural rights to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, to worship their creator according to the dictates of their conscience or not to worship, and they have their civil rights as well, civil rights being originally natural rights, yet deposited in a common stock of societal rights upon entrance into society, as described by Thomas Paine in “Rights of Man.”  But do they have the right to marry and have that marriage be sanctioned by the government?  No, because nature never intended homosexual marriage and procreation or the changing of one’s sex in the human species; thus, because nature does not condone these things, they cannot be a right that is to be recognized by the government.  Society’s governments cannot recognize something as a right that was never a right in nature.  Locke says this; Paine says this; do you not believe these two individuals, as well as the other Founders of America (Locke not being a Founder of course)?  Do homosexuals and transgender individuals have the right to destroy society and ultimately the human species?  No, I think not, just as no other heterosexual male or female has that right by violating any other law of nature.  

If one were to deny the laws of nature, or deny that nature imposed any such laws on mankind, then he/she would automatically deny that all mankind was born free by nature, with certain inalienable rights, as given to man by nature and nature’s Creator, as it states in the Declaration of Independence.  And if one were to deny the existence of any natural law and man’s obligation to be bound by it, then he/she would necessarily deny the very foundation of American government and the source of all our rights and liberty, thus making the creation of another foundation for our government and another foundational source for our rights, liberty, and equality necessary for us to continue to defend them in an ever increasing tyrannical and arbitrary world.  Which will it be?  Will we accept the notion, as outlined and proved by those defenders of liberty and natural rights as Locke, Trenchard and Gordon, Hume, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Richard Price, John and Samuel Adams, Jefferson, Paine, Washington, Benjamin Rush, John Dickinson, and every other famously known and unknown American or enlightened European?  Or will we ignore or deny such natural laws and seek another foundation for our government and source of our rights and liberty as proof of their existence.  The choice is ours; I know where I stand and which course I choose.  What say you?  I now leave you with the following quote by John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, author of the Massachusetts constitution, and the second president of the United States of America, so as to prompt us all into action in choosing a path for our nation and ultimately for the world.

"If [the] empire of superstition and hypocrisy should be overthrown, happy indeed will it be for the world; but if all religion and all morality should be over-thrown with it, what advantage will be gained? The doctrine of human equality is founded entirely in the Christian doctrine that we are all children of the same Father, all accountable to Him for our conduct to one another, all equally bound to respect each other's self love."

~John Adams



Upon further discovery of a quote by the classical liberal John Stuart Mill, often hailed, respected, and cited by many Libertarians, I wish to add further insights to any potential or often made arguments by Liberal Democrats and Libertarians alike would make or have made in favor of legally and legislatively recognizing same-sex marriage, by citing John Stuart Mill.  Perhaps it might be argued by some, and indeed it has been argued by many, that marriage is a legal union between two individuals who love each other, regardless of the sex and gender of the two individuals in question, simply that and nothing more.  One could attempt to use a reference to John Stuart Mill's section titled "On Marriage" in his Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, written in 1825, which says the following:

"Surely it is wrong, wrong in every way, and on every view of morality, even the vulgar view,—that there should exist any motives to marriage except the happiness which two persons who love one another feel in associating their existence."

Perhaps, if this quote were taken in complete isolation from all else he wrote in this particular essay, the individual making the argument that marriage is nothing more than two individuals who love each other, regardless of their sex or gender, coming together in a legal bond of matrimony.  But this quote cannot be taken in isolation, for it is surrounded by an entire context, which cannot be erased.  And thus, such an argument could not be made from this quotation of John Stuart Mill, precisely because of the very sentence preceding this quote, as well as the entire context of marriage John Stuart Mill was writing about in this essay; the marriage between a man and a woman, and the legally allowed (at the time) subjugation of the woman to the married husband in rights and in other ways.  For if taken into consideration as a whole, the paragraph in which this quote by Mill occurs is:

"These considerations are nothing to an impassioned character; but there is something in them, for the characters from which they emanate—is not that so? The only conclusion, however, which can be drawn from them, is one for which there would exist ample grounds even if the law of marriage as it now exists were perfection. This conclusion is, the absurdity and immorality of a state of society and opinion in which a woman is at all dependent for her social position upon the fact of her being or not being married. Surely it is wrong, wrong in every way, and on every view of morality, even the vulgar view,—that there should exist any motives to marriage except the happiness which two persons who love one another feel in associating their existence."

Thus, in Mill's eyes, at least according to his essays on marriage, marriage consisted of a legal bond between two equally free and autonomous individuals of the opposite sex (one's own natural born gender, not transgender individuals), who when once married, were still as equally free together as individuals as they were when they were unmarried individuals.  Every man and every woman has the inherent and inalienable natural right to marry any member of the opposite sex of their choosing, and have it be recognized by the law.  This is the only interpretation that can be taken from this quotation of John Stuart Mill.  Any other interpretation cannot reasonably be made, for such an interpretation would have to be made with this quote in isolation, ignoring the context in which it was made in.

Thus, Libertarians or any person from whatever political creed they may choose to affiliate themselves or identify with cannot use this quote by Mill to their advantage to rewrite, ignore, or conquer the laws of nature in their dictating that marriage is between members of the naturally born opposite sex and nothing more.


Post Script:

As a Latter Day Saint, or a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints, I base all my beliefs first and foremost on the LDS Gospel doctrine found in the Scriptures/standard works, inasmuch as church doctrine and God’s commandments necessarily concern political principles.  Thus, I can back up everything I have written concerning same-sex marriage in this treatise with scriptural doctrine concerning the open or secret practice of homosexuality and same-sex marriage as not condoned by God the Eternal Father nor his Son, Christ, our actual physical Creator of this world, of us, and of the Law of Nature.  Locke, given his Christian beliefs and his citation of the Bible in his Two Treastises, as well as his essay on "The Reasonableness of Christianity," shares my same views I believe, from what I have read and cited.  Thus, in my view, Locke's liberal state of nature and sense of natural right are creatures or creations of this God/Creator, or in both my view and Locke's view, Christ.  Of course, Locke probably believed in a trinity of sorts similar to that of Catholicism and Protestantism, in that God the Father, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are actually the same being, etc.  But this is of no matter because in both our beliefs, Christ created this world, us in his image, thus granting us certain natural rights, and the law of nature using actual science/scientific laws that he has a knowledge of and possibly control over some of them, given his knowledge of all.

I personally think Elder Talmage said it best in "Jesus the Christ," that the scientific laws of this world are of a lesser nature and that not only does mankind not fully understand these lesser scientific laws, mankind does not even get close to understanding the full scientific knowledge and nature of God the Father and Christ his Son.  Talmage talks of this in his section on miracles in chapter 11, pg. 141-43.  He writes, “Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized.  Gravitation is everywhere operative, but the local and special application of other agencies may appear to nullify it-as by muscular effort or mechanical impulse a stone is lifted from the ground, poised aloft, or sent hurtling through space.  At every stage of the process, however, gravity is in full play, though its effect is modified by that of other and locally superior energy.  In a broader sense, all nature is miracle.  In the contemplation of the miracles wrought by Christ [the Creation included], we must of necessity recognize the operation of a power transcending our present human understanding.  In this field, science has not yet advanced far enough to analyze and explain.  To deny the actuality of miracles on the ground that, because we cannot comprehend the means, the reported results are fictitious, is to arrogate to the human mind the attribute of omniscience, by implying that what man cannot comprehend cannot be, and that therefore he is able to comprehend all that is.”

Thus, like the natural law of gravity set into action by Christ in the Creation, so too is marriage, procreation, and the creation of family between a man and woman, members of the opposite sex, a natural law, in that the Creator created first man and woman, and not man and man or woman and woman only.  And though there are natural means of modifying or going against this natural law, such as in the case of gravity, the law of marriage, procreation, and the creation of a family between members of the opposite sex remains in effect despite “natural” means of opposing or going against this law.  But, Talmage has more to say concerning this “natural” means of contradicting the law of nature: “The kingdom of God is to be a kingdom of order [and law], in which toleration and the recognition of individual rights shall prevail.  One who really prays that this kingdom come will strive to hasten its coming by living according to the law of God.  His effort will be to keep himself in harmony with the order of the kingdom, to subject the flesh to the spirit, selfishness to altruism, and to learn to love the things that God loves.  To make the will of God supreme on earth as it is in heaven is to be allied with God in the affairs of life.  There are many who profess belief that as God is omnipotent, all that is is according to His will.  Such a supposition is unscriptural, unreasonable, and untrue.  Wickedness is not in harmony with His will; falsehood, hypocrisy, vice and crime are not God’s gifts to man.  By His will these monstrosities that have developed as hideous deformities in human nature and life shall be abolished, and this blessed consummation shall be reached when by choice, without surrender or abrogation of their free agency, men shall do the will of God.” (James E. Talmage, "Jesus the Christ," pg. 227)


Such is homosexuality, transgenderism, and same-sex marriage, among other sexual issues.  They are “deformities in human nature and life,” and only still exist because mankind, using his/her free agency, has chosen to believe them to be either God’s will or not contrary to God’s will, and only natural tendencies of man that are of no harm and no negativity.  But these beliefs are wrong, as already stated, and are not only contrary to the will of God, but are contrary to the law of nature, even though they are “natural” deformities in the nature of man and in life.  Thus, the natural law still exists in force, yet it is man that chooses to violate the law of nature in choosing to uphold or be apathetic concerning homosexuality, transgenderism, and same-sex marriage, among others.
Thomas Paine, too, another Lockean believed that the Supreme Creator, whomever one chooses to believe this being may or may not be [for me, it is Christ], first created the world and man, then created nature, and used matter and scientific laws to do all these things.  Paine writes, “…we are by necessity forced into the rational comformable belief of the existence of a cause superior to matter, and that cause man calls GOD.
As to that which is called nature, it is no other than the laws by which motion and action of every kind, with respect to unintelligible matter, is regulated. And when we speak of looking through nature up to nature’s God, we speak philosophically the same rational language as when we speak of looking through human laws up to the power that ordained them.  God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon.”


Thus, I have proved all I said in my treatise using science and philosophy, natural and political, from the mouths of those in authority within the LDS church and those who not only influenced those who founded the American nation and its laws, but those who actually performed this task of founding our country.  And all point to the conclusion that not only is homosexuality, transgenderism, and same-sex marriage contrary to the will of our Christian God, but is contrary to the law of nature, set forth by our Creator, which I believe to be the same as our Christian God, particularly the God of this world, Jesus Christ, acting with the power and authority, and in the name and commandment of God the Father.

No comments:

Post a Comment