We, ... and none others, must now find counsel for the peril of the world.
- Elrond, in J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings , 'The Fellowship of the Ring', Book 2, Ch. 2, p. 242; 50th An. Ed., 200
ZELO ZELATUS SUM PRO DOMINO DEO EXERCITUUM
Salutations!
Thank you for visiting the site of
Preston Lawrence Talanda-Fisher, OCDS, JD
of Kalamazoo, State of Michigan, USA,
Horticulturist.
Links of Interest:
Summary of Legal Position on Homosexual Pseudo 'Marriage'
On the Invalidity of Obergefell versus Hodges
The United States Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell versus Hodges (26 June AD 2015) is not law. As a Doctor of Law (JD), I was trained in the theories of legal interpretation of both conservatives or traditionalists, and progressives.
Even absent any moral or religious consideration , there is no valid legal or lay interpretation of (1) the Due Process or (2) the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution that authorized the ruling of the Court. Cutting through any slothful claim that the legal questions pertinent to homosexual pseudo 'marriage' were too complicated for a lay person to understand, the 2 essential legal questions in these bundled cases were very simple to answer:
(1) Regarding the Due Process Clause, the generic 'liberty' of every American citizen that the Clause protects never, prior to or in American history, included a purported, pseudo 'right' to 'marry' a person of the same sex. Therefore, no legal claim that such a 'right' was violated can be brought to a court. There was and is no right in these cases that the Clause protects.
(2) Regarding the Equal Protection Clause, every American citizen, whether heterosexual or homosexually inclined, had and has the equal, identical right to marry a person of the opposite sex, if he or she satisfies the other valid conditions.
There is no given instance of a homosexual attempting to exercise this right and being denied it, unlike instances of denial of heterosexuals. There was no factual, disparate, unequal, or discriminatory treatment of a homosexual at all regarding this right. Further, this right would not have changed if the Court ruled as it should have. The plainest reading of the Equal Protection Clause, as any law student can explain, provides a perfectly clear answer: there never was discrimination against a single homosexual by a law defining marriage correctly as only between one man and one woman. I never had a right to marry a person of the same sex either. The marital laws that correctly define marriage treated, and still treat, hetero- and homosexuals absolutely equally. Moreover, any honest lawyer can explain that because there was no unequal treatment in the cases pertaining to this ruling, these cases unambiguously presented, ab initio (from the beginning), no justiciable legal question for a court to answer and no actionable injury for which a legal remedy was needed or even possible. Therefore, the Federal courts did not have even the legal jurisdiction (authority) pursuant to Article 3 of the United States Constitution to hear these cases , let alone the jurisdiction to decide them.
Of logical necessity, any honest person, even without a law degree, can and must invariably conclude that Obergefell versus Hodges is, as 3 of the dissenting judges correctly stated, 'an act of will, not legal judgment. The ["]right["] it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent.' Therefore, there is 'no choice but to dissent.' (Emphasis added; Ibidem, Roberts, CJ, dissenting, slip opinion, page 3 ) This is the dictionary definition of judicial tyranny.
The ruling is not law, and by it the Supreme Court committed an illegal act of tyranny which lacks the force of law. Consequently, all law defining marriage correctly as only between one man and one woman retains its validity, this ruling notwithstanding, and any purported, pseudo 'marriage' premised on this invalid ruling is legally invalid. The issuance of an invalid ruling by the Supreme Court is not new, and it can have devastating consequences: The Supreme Court previously issued Dred Scott versus Sandford (60 US 393; 6 March AD 1857) , on which the continuation of the evil of African American slavery was pretensed, and Roe versus Wade (410 US 113; 22 January AD 1973) and its progeny, on which the murder of innocent children before birth, id est, 'abortion', is pretensed. Dred Scott versus Sandford resulted in the American Civil War. Roe versus Wade resulted in the continuing murder of tens of millions of innocent children. History indicates that when America is complicit with judicial tyranny and fails to scrutinize the judgment of courts, as it does the judgment of the Congress and the President, this tyranny becomes the very antithesis of life and liberty.
The expected response of the Nation to an unconstitutional declaration of war by a president would be disobedience and the initiation of his removal from office. Why then, when the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court exclusive authority to interpret its meaning, is the judicial tyranny of Obergefell versus Hodges treated as if it were legally valid? And why has the majority in the case not been removed from office?
Pope Francis on Homosexual 'Marriage'
Regarding the purported 'legalization' of homosexual pseudo 'marriage' in Argentina, then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio stated:
'At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother[,] and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts. … Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God. … We remember what God said to His people in a moment of great anguish: "This war is not yours, but God's": defend us, then, in this war.'
(Emphasis added; http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal_bergoglio_hits_out_at_same-sex_marriage/#ixzz3eCHNnSUE )
Pope Francis on Related Gender Theory
'Gender ideology is demonic!'
(Emphasis added; http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2014/aug2014p9_4334.html )
Communication
Preston Lawrence Talanda-Fisher, OCDS, JD
Kalamazoo, MI, USA
Copyright © anno domini 2021, Preston Lawrence Talanda-Fisher, OCDS, JD; ALL AUTHORIAL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED.
This site was last Revised on 13 September AD 2021, and future DEVELOPMENT is anticipated.
+MILCT
This website uses cookies.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.