A structural lesson seems in order for fringe America and it's judiciary:
Of this...
And this...
... is a rational connection!
Now that I have your attention... UPDATE: 03.16.05:08:29
Judge Richard Kramer has demonstrated himself to be incompetent in matters of law, and an imbecile when it comes to logic. In his ruling, Monday, striking down California laws that limit marriage to "a man and a woman..." he stated that,
"No rational basis exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners..."
Ignoring for an instant the historic condition of unification, which in itself constitutes rational or logical establishment of a cultural definition, the natural mechanism of human reproduction is indeed a rational basis for a concept of existence that must be acknowledged by law.
Rationality being consistent with or based on reason. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner is another way to describe logic. Logic can be defined as principles based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions. Mathematically speaking it is the capability of being a quotient of integers. The sum of 1 and 1 equals 2. Likewise, one male and one female (their sperm and an egg, respectively) begets a child.
Is this a preferential condition? No! Preference, spirituality, and emotion has nothing to do with logic.
The principles have been established through observation, as fact. A narrow consensus to the contrary will not change the fact. Law is not invented as a matter of preference, but rather is based in premise on nature and the fundamental conditions of existence. It is not arguable that as a fact, humanity has exactly two aspects... the Man (Male) and the Woman (Female). The unification of the two aspects of humanity creates a balance (much the same way that the Taoists consider the universe to be symmetrical oriented by Yin and Yang). The concept of unified balance creating a whole is an ancient principle that stretches back throughout 6000 years of known human history and likely beyond and has been exorably associated with the concept of Marriage (again, the balanced unification of humanity). With the creation of the first true modern democracy, the Constitutional Republic of the United States, the recognition of natural (inalienable) rights of Man (truncated term: Mankind, to be understood as man and women) were codified. Note that they were CODIFIED as existing by nature of existence and NOT defined as men do not posess the mandate to manifest the definition of freedom for others. It must be acknowledged by men and governments as a natural state of being of the individual by virtue of his and her existence. The Bill of Rights did just that and one's birth into this Republic and acceptance of citizenship is the promise that a citizen will acknowledge and maintain these principles accordingly. Birth being the key term at this point in the discussion, we can acknowledge that birth is the event at which existence is understood by the US Constitution. This is an arguable point to be sure, but for the sake of discussion, this threshold will suffice. Birth is a natural culmination of conception. And conception is the natural consequence of one action... the unification of a man and a women. Marriage, therefore, is the natural precept to the concept of inalienable rights. The accepted definition of Marriage, is the ideal condition of natural human existence. Marriage, therefore, is inalienably the unification of one man and one women with the express potential of propagating the human race in a free and natural manner.
All other relationships among men and women are matters of legality, to be defined by contract; including unions, partnerships, and the adoption of juvenile human beings from the natural state of their family posession by means of consent.
Judge Kramer's ruling is a contradiction of fact in defiance of logic. In nature, contradiction does not exist. Likewise, it does not belong in philosophy, policy, nor law.
(edited 04.16.05:20:24)
No comments:
Post a Comment