As I Understand It....

Same-sex marriage is not an issue that can be decided by the court, state or federal, because it already IS decided and allowed by the US Constitution, specifically, the 14th amendments due process clause which allows for persons of and in the United States to enter into private contracts.

In deciding any matter before the court, the justices have often looked to the history of a subject to help in guiding its decisions. Therefor, it seems, when this current matter is ever presented before the high court, that the justices will do what they have always done, read the briefs and consult history.

The history of marriage is rich with contractual foundation, structure, implementation and enforcement. Without going into highly detailed history, let us just consider the broad strokes for the purposes of this consideration.

Marriage, first and foremost, was a tribal/community based societal recognition of a man's claim on a female-who, up until the 1900s, was considered, legally, a mans property. This claim was made publicly to the tribe/community through spiritual ritual. This ritual later became a "ceremony" with "religious" blessings and meanings (in the eyes of g-d).

When societies became more structured, the set of oral rules that were agreed upon in which to function in this society became "common law". This "common law" was then written and structured and turned into "the law"---which, by the way, was governed and written by the Church. Therefor, it was, in effect, Religious law. With the separation of Church and State, the state enacted laws, borrowed from common law, religious law, and other sources, to create the Civil Law while other laws were created as needed to 'suit' the popular sway of societies monied and politically powered elite (prohibition, baggy pants).

Marriages were performed in religious ceremonies and were understood to be contracts, either oral or written, throughout history. The common man used the oral contract of marriage to secure a female for reproduction of the bloodline, to care for the male in feeding, clothing, intimate needs, household labour, while the male provided for the female and the offspring, food, shelter and protection. The wedding ring was the item of value given to seal this contract. The aristocracy and political religious royals who governed used the written contract of marriage to secure treaties, trade lands, exchange wealth, exact war, secure peace and create political alliances. It was very common for a young child (male or female) to be contracted at birth for marriage when the child became "of age". Any violation of this marriage contract had its repercussions as stipulated verbally, in writing, or by implication.

We can take one reference to this from the reign of King Henry VIII, who, while desperately seeking a divorce through religious law from his Queen, Catherine of Aragon, was reminded by his advisors that if he did not visit the Queen in her bed at night that he, the King, could be called into violation of the marriage contract providing her right to conjugal visits (conjugal visits were not written parts of a marriage contract, they were implied within the meaning of the contract and taken at common law as a stipulation by the parties to the contract of marriage). Additionally, since Religious law refused the King his divorce, he broke away from religious law and the church and instituted his own civil and religious law (the Kings Law), giving him right to break the marriage contract through divorce.

SIDEBAR: I take a moment here to note that in todays world, specifically in the State of California, that a "civil union" that may be recognized by the State for same sex couples in lieu of a valid and legal "marriage" contract requires the exact same legal procedure to break or dissolve that contract, and that legal procedure is Divorce. It seems odd to me that on the front end many people are screaming about the word "marriage" being applied to homosexuals, but on the back end, no one is even whispering about the word "divorce", which is the legal instrument to end the contract of marriage. And in the State of California, this procedure of divorce applies to both heterosexual (marriage) and homosexual (civil union) contracts!
END SIDEBAR

The kings law also dictated the religious beliefs of the people (reformation).

When the Framers established the United States as a sovereign nation separate from the rule of English Law, both Civil and Religious (the Kings Law), the Framers created a government structure through the Constitution of the United States of America that expressly provided for the separation of powers of "church and state"-basically, the state cannot tell the church what to do and the church cannot tell the state what to do, where the state equals the government. The framers also provided in this constitution equal protection under the law for all persons in the United States. The equal protection clause basically provides that every person in the country is equal in the eyes of the law and is afforded the same opportunities, liberties, rights, privileges and protections as everyone else, no matter what. This clause was called into action and brought to daylight when the court declared that "separate is not equal" nor can it or will it ever be.

Today, we have a question before the California Supreme Court, and a question that many others states in the Union will ask, and that will no doubt end up on the docket of the United States Supreme Court. That question is this: Do homosexual persons in the United States of America enjoy the same rights and privileges, including the right to enter into contracts, the right to choice, and the fundamental rights to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, as heterosexual persons regarding the right to enter into a marriage contract under the Constitution of the United States?

This is a question of Law, not a question of religious belief or societal opinion. As a question of Law, as provided by the many protections of the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, the answer is yes.

Marriage is a contract. When Tina Turner belted out "What's love got to do with it?" - She knew from whence she sang. Historically, marriage has the foundation of being a contractual agreement. This is proven through documentation, oral tradition, and practice. It was not until the victorian era in this country that marriage took on the "romantic" implication, meaning and flavor that it has today, where "love" became the impetus to marry. Those persons with substantial wealth recognized the contractual foundation of marriage and put the marriage contract into writing in the form of a prenuptial agreement, which is binding by law.

In the United States, the procedure to enter into a marriage contract requires that the parties to the contract (contractors) file with the State and pay the State a fee. The State in turn gives the contractors a marriage license. This State issued license automatically confers upon the contractors certain State Benefits and it gives the contractors the right, under the law, to engage in the State in the business of marriage. This marriage License is recognized as valid throughout all the States of the Union. When the contractors no longer want to be in the business of marriage-for whatever reason, they must, by law, end the marriage contract. This is done by filing a contract termination notice with the State, also known as a petition for Divorce. This Divorce, when executed, also severs the contractual obligation of the State to the contractors regarding the State provided benefits of the Marriage Contract. Absent this filing to the State, the parties remain "married by law."

Getting "married" in a religious or spiritual ceremony has no legal weight, meaning, implication or validity. Marriage through religious or spiritual ceremony has only the recognition of joining two souls, or spirits, together as one in the eyes of the deity to which you believe. There is no legal recognition of this type of marriage, therefor there is no legal requirement to dissolve the marriage by divorce with the state.

Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, a publicly known Hollywood couple, did not enter into the legal contract of marriage with the State. They married "spiritually", perhaps in a privately held religious or spiritual ceremony. Most people would think that under common-law that they are "married." This is not true. The State of California does not have a common law recognition of marriage. While this publicly recognized couple have been together for a very long time, they are considered "married" in the eyes of society only, but not in the eyes of the law. Were they ever to split, separate or "divorce"-they could just do it. No legal filings with the State required. Their relationship can also be considered as a domestic partnership, though not one legally registered as such with the State (domestic partnership, by definition, cannot be held to apply to homosexuals only). In the State of California, the State will recognize a filing for a different-sex domestic partnership only if one of the partners is 62 years of age or older.

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, another publicly known Hollywood couple, married both legally and spiritually. They entered into the legal contract of marriage in the United States, in Los Angeles California, and, they were married in a religious or spiritual ceremony in Italy. Were they legally married in Italy, it would take about 4-8 years for them to obtain a legal divorce through the Italian legal process. In the United States, it would take the mere filing of Divorce papers with the State of California and the execution of the Divorce clauses of their prenuptial agreement.

In the United States, with the separation of Church and State, the State is the issuer of the License for the legal contract of marriage. Not the Church.
While the Church may disagree with the right of homosexuals to obtain such a license and enter into the legal contract of marriage, the Church cannot make the State deny legal licenses for marriage to homosexuals who desire to enter into that legal contract. Nor can the Church make it illegal for homosexuals to obtain such state licenses and enter into such legal contracts.

Under the same separation clause, the State cannot tell the Church to perform the religious or spiritual ceremony of Marriage for homosexuals. The State can perform a Civil Ceremony, which conveys the traditional oral terms of the marriage contract, commonly referred to as marriage vows. This Civil Ceremony is open to heterosexuals, and in the State of Massachusetts, to homosexuals. Interestingly when heterosexuals participate in a Civil Ceremony, the oral terms of their contract are still called marriage vows and their contract is still called a marriage contract, not a civil-union with civil vows-which is the current State sanctioned language reserved specifically and uniquely for homosexual marriages--this begs the question, "What's g-d got to do with it?" Meaning, if a heterosexual can legally enter into and have the contract of marriage without the intervention, participation, sanction, permission, ceremony or approval of the Church, why can't a homosexual as well?


Chief Justice John Marshall, in 1810, while considering a case before the court (Fletcher v Peck 1810) asked the question "What is a contract?" He answered definitively "A contract is a compact between two people." The 14th amendment protects an individuals right under the law to enter into contracts. Marriage is a contract under that law, in which the State has an interest. Marriage is two people entering into a compact. That compact, which is constitutionally recognized as a legal contract, cannot be legally or constitutionally denied to the persons of the United States because of their anatomy or private bedroom activity.

In 1866 in Milligan, the court asked if the Constitution protected "all classes of men, at all times, under all circumstances"

I think, in this century, we are about to find out.

Value of the Self

There is some feeling circulating. It is about deserving.
De-serving
Not serving

Do I de-serve it?
I did not de-serve that.
I de-served that.

When we ask the question or make those statements, what do we really mean? What are we really asking? Meaning must be agreed upon before negotiations begin.

How do we know what we de-serve and don't de-serve? It can be based on situation, circumstance, but most importantly, on value. Value of the self. Self-worth.
Placing value on and within ourselves.
We often look to others to give us value and worth. But all they can really do is validate us on parity within their own value system. No one can give me self-worth and value. That I must give to myself. In order to accept the validating judgement of another, I must first validate myself.
self validate
self value
self worth
self acceptance
self approval

When I have given to my self these things and acknowledge them within and for myself, then this is what others will see and give to me freely. Since I have given these values and traits to myself first, there is no reason for me to self-depreciate when given these things by others.
It is in the act of self-depreciation that we take away the value of our worth and bankrupt our selves, our souls.
Re-written: It is in the act of self depreciation that I take away my self value and self worth. And when done enough times, I end up bankrupting my self and my soul.

Re-value
After bankrupting myself, I need to find a way to re-value myself. This is called Re-evaluation. Finding what it is inside myself that gives me value. When I find what gives me value, then I re-value myself. Once I re-value myself, my self-worth increases. It is from this increase in self-worth that my value to others can be found. Through my many skills, talents, technical and creative processes, I have substantial worth and value. This worth and value can be purchased by others to increase their value and worth.