Arguments

Against Gay Marriage

Consider this an Amicus Brief on the Gay Marriage case to be heard by the Supreme
Court on 4/28/15. The Supreme Court has already read this brief.



Preface

The arguments against gay marriage revolve around the following issues. The court
has previously heard arguments on the validity of the laws passed by vote in a few
states enacting the legality of gay marriage. The court then held that it did not have
jurisdiction to hear the case resulting in the upholding of the laws passed by the
states. Now the court has decided to take the case up for decision on whether the
gay marriage laws are constitutionally protected rights guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States, Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, the
Fourteenth Amendment, and whether the First Amendment restricts the right to gay
marriage. Further anticipating this point, the question of whether the jurisdiction of
the court is affected by the imposition of the right to gay marriage and whether the
right to gay marriage presents a novel issue of Freedom of Religion under the First
Amendment. The opinion of this brief is the following: Gay marriage shall be struck
down as an unconstitutional assertion of rights under the First Amendment Free
Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause because, to enact gay marriage, the court
must define religion to define gay marriage, and this definition of religion causes a
procedural mishap in the current adversarial procedural system the courts have
employed; such mishap causing the adversarial system of law to engage in a
conundrum where the adversarial procedure will be abolished in favor of a system
where cross examination becomes impossible, causing every court proceeding to
become an advisory opinion rather than a standard court proceeding. Gay marriage
therefore must be abolished.

First Amendment Concerns

The First Amendment is broken into many parts. Two parts of the First Amendment
are the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause that form the building
blocks of the Freedom of religion that our country was founded upon. These clauses
dictate that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Inherent in these clauses is the effect that the
People of a state may not exhibit the right to make a law respecting the
establishment or free exercise of religion. The court has never officially defined a
religion to the effect that a religion is limited based upon certain criteria. What this
means is, when the people of a state create a law, they are acting through their
voting right to create a law that must be applicable to the state or United States and
must be coherent under these clauses. The clauses can limit the law, but cannot
define the law in terms of religion.

These clauses apply to gay marriage in the following way. When we were in the
midst of the civil rights movement, being black was not a sin. When we were in the
midst of slavery, being a slave was not a sin. When we were giving women their
rights to vote, being a woman was not a sin. The difference here is, being gay is a
sin. Now, before you jump out of your seats and say Thats up to interpretation,
that is correct, it is up to interpretation. The first problem with the gay rights
movement is it has become a religious movement that has placed the court in a
puzzle where the court must act as God, or the Creator, or Yahweh, or Allah, or
whatever God you believe in, to determine whether the gay rights are religiously
viable or not. The issue is, the court cannot determine whether gay marriage is a sin
because it is unconstitutional for the court to determine whether gay marriage is a
sin or not. The court does not have the capacity to play God, and therefore cannot
rule on this issue. The court has jurisdiction to hear the case, because the People
created the law, but the court does not have the capacity establish religion or
prohibit the free exercise thereof.

The next argument logically speaking would be to just make it legal, right? If you
cannot limit the free exercise of religion and you cannot define the nature of the sin
then you have to just make it legal. This logic fails when you take into account the
fact that the Constitution was based upon a belief in God through the Declaration of
Independence. The power to create the Constitution was derived from God through
the Declaration of Independence at the beginning clause where the Declaration
reads We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that

they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The power came from the
Creator. This is a dead end argument for the gays because they argue that they are
entitled to their happiness, but in hindsight, they must prove that their religious
freedom must be substantiated by the court, which the court cannot possible
uphold because of the limitations in the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause
and Establishment Clause. The right to happiness does not trump the courts
necessity to follow the law. If it did, the court would have to define religion from
this point forward, which would ruin our nation.
The Adversarial Procedure of the Court System

The previous gay marriage case was determined by the court to lack jurisdiction. In
Federal Courts there are two types of jurisdiction: Personal Jurisdiction and Subject
Matter Jurisdiction. While the Court has both Personal and Subject Matter
Jurisdiction in this case, and can decide this case, the nature of jurisdiction in and of
itself has become the issue. At issue in this case is whether the Court can actually
hear the cases before it from this point forward if gay marriage were to be upheld.
The Constitution was written based upon the union between a man and a woman.
The court system was formed based upon an adversarial procedure where cross-
examination is based upon the sexual relationship between a man and a woman in
the context of a belief that a witness must swear an oath to tell the truth. The

problem that arises if gay marriage were to be enacted is that the Courts will no
longer be able to conduct proper cross-examinations based upon this adversarial
procedure. The courts will then lose judicial review and will no longer be able to
hear cases because the courts will not be able to decipher the language in the
records. The appellate courts were not there to hear the testimony offered in the
trial courts. If there is no way to analyze the record, there is no way to hear a case
and therefore every court opinion will now be an advisory opinion, which is
unconstitutional. As such, gay marriage cannot be upheld.

The gay marriage case is poison to the court. I cannot even call the court to tell them
to read this paper. Let it go. You have everything but her finger.