For East Baton Rouge Metro-Council ed 8/4/14

Most people like fairness and liberty, but many empathizers overlook justice, which is the goal of civic governance. Without justice, liberty is impossible. Among Abraham Lincoln’s worst offenses was holding the Declaration of Independence preeminent to the United States Constitution; an unintended consequence 157 years afterwards is fixation on “diversity and equality” at the expense of reality and justice. Just now, “equality” attracts the will of the people, which often deviates from the ultimate justice of the people. Lawyers for the same-sex agenda turn every issue to “equality” and thereby create unrealistic legislation from pure opinion--effecting legislation by the Supreme Court, which is not authorized by the people to legislate. The fallacy of the same-sex agenda is that bonding with an individual for personal reasons justifies civic favor against the person who remains single.[1]  The primary victim is the nation’s children.

So far, helped by the enigma of Governor Bobby Jindal, Louisiana is surviving the injustice wrought by the same-sex agenda. Jindal vetoed gestational surrogacy law twice and brooked the public statement against sodomy. However, the people need to get informed on the same-sex agenda and decide what they want their representatives to vote for:  biological and psychological justice or progressive equality; equality for individuals or "equality" for couples who bond according to personal preference; men contracting to separate a child from its mother; women inseminating without providing the child a male role-model; civic governance or church doctrine; governance under “god?” a phantasm nobody understands or governance under the ultimate justice of the people; written law according to the amended US Constitution or regression to the Declaration of Independence: decisions routinely based on the objective truth or decisions routinely based on opinion; discouraging behavior that risks disease or encouraging risk-taking. Goodness knows the US Congress has succumbed to the aggressive federal administration, and only "We the People of the United States" as defined by the preamble can correct that unfortunate development. So, getting this issue right—deciding whether same-sex couples are equal to heterosexual couples is on us:  “We the People of the United States” as defined by the preamble to the United States Constitution. Note that that entity is not equivalent to “we, the people,” the majority of votes, and it is distinguished by voluntary commitment to the eight goals stated in the preamble.

I hope you are aware of the importance of what is happening as the same-sex agenda sweeps through the courts of, so far, twenty states, now reportedly enjoying 62 % public approval. The people I talked to don't agree with that poll. Equality for each citizen is being pressed as preference for couples "in love" yet integrally unproductive, based on emotional opinion that craftily suppresses the equal rights of the individual who remains single. Heterosexual-divorce convention often grants child-custody to the mother (because it is logical to the father and the court) is being turned upside down for gay-couple surrogacy services at the expense of the child. The child which for nine months had attached would continue attachment with its mother, must attach with a man or two. Both child and mother are candidates for attachment disorder, and goodness help the men. Everybody has friends and relatives who prefer same-sex sex and same-sex partnering, and no one wants to hurt anyone's feelings. But for cooperative autonomy, each person must manage their own feelings. And, the person who remains single, especially children, must be accommodated. But here is the equality issue that is not being discussed, and it is strategically about couples, not individuals: 

Some heterosexual couples may procreate. Procreation is necessary for maintenance of a people: children are of civic interest. Furthermore, abuse of children must be discovered and discouraged by civic interest. Same-sex couples can’t procreate without either surrogacy or insemination. Surrogacy imposes financial and moral burdens on the couple and, moreover, biological and psychological risk to children. Genetic surrogacy separates the child from its biological mother. Same-sex parents cannot provide children gender role-models the child needs, without a role-model substitute. The substitute inevitably presents her/his memes, not the parent’s memes. Thus, while all individual citizens have civic equality, in its performance for children the same-sex couple is not equal to the heterosexual couple.
The above statement should be incorporated as the justice of the people seeks means to honor same-sex monogamy and other statistical deviations from heterosexual monogamy, and so far, these issues are being ignored in court proceedings. The ultimate civic justice of a people is being distracted by government suppression of the objective truth.

Condoning the same-sex choice and ordinances granting same-sex couples the right to sue based on sexual preference would be in conflict with the public interest. For example, La Rev Stat § 9:2713, 1987, which makes surrogacy services for gay men against public policy. The law states:

 A contract for surrogate motherhood as defined herein shall be absolutely null and shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy. "Contract for surrogate motherhood" means any agreement whereby a person not married to the contributor of the sperm agrees for valuable consideration to be inseminated, to carry any resulting fetus to birth, and then to relinquish to the contributor of the sperm the custody and all rights and obligations to the child.
Valuable consideration must be defined by the surrogate, and it could be something as simple as the mother's satisfaction of bringing another wonderful infant into the world. One member of a panel discussion suggested that genetic agreements might be more acceptable if the surrogate could opt to keep the infant. But that seems like another objectification of the child. In simple terms, when a woman not married to the donor agrees to become pregnant by his sperm then relinquish the child to him, the agreement is against public policy. The most fundamental reason for public opposition is that the intended child is an object, and objectification of human beings is akin to slavery. Sometimes, slavery is voluntary, which seems the case with surrogate mothers, especially the ones who later long for their child. But enslavement of the intended child for the purposes of the gay couple is forced. Moreover, the child gets separated from its biological mother and must thereafter attach with a man or two. The mother also is cut off from the attachment process, whether she is aware of attachment or not. So both mother and child may develop attachment dysfunction. Some agreements would assuage this factor by allowing the mother to visit the child after he/she is no longer hers, but it would need to be frequent and regular. The same-sex agenda counters that children of heterosexual parents are objects but ignores that those children are extensions of the mother and father as well as extensions of two blood lines and the attendant biological and cultural evolutions.[2] Also, mother, father, and children complete an integral family wherein both male and female role-models, perhaps over two to four generations, are incorporated into the children’s lives—no need for substitutes.

During each of the last two Louisiana legislative sessions, the same-sex agenda has been against the existing genetic-surrogacy legislation and for gestational surrogacy legistation. The existing statute regarding surrogacy agreements, distinguished by the term “genetic surrogacy,”  has been opposed by the same-sex community during their support for public provisions for the surrogacy industry in Louisiana. The surrogacy industry also manages gestational surrogacy, for married, heterosexual couples, which has been utilized by two state representatives. The industry takes the mother’s ova and the father’s sperm to form, in vitro, a zygote for implantation into the surrogate, whose body gestates the child. Note that the body, not the person, is the provider in the contract; the body is qualified by past successful pregnancy; the mind and person in that body is subjugated, with the approval of the people's court, according to the two laws Governor Jindal kindly vetoed. Many people who would be reluctant on their own decide that the contract before them is all right, because the government approves. That is often wrong, and in the case of surrogacy, the opportunities for woe are legion. Gestational surrogacy imposes on the intended child biological and psychological risks, about which there is little data beyond the screams published by some adults who were born in surrogacy. With the child-abuse the nation suffers today, it is an easy call for the people: in Louisiana, the surrogacy industry is against public policy and should remain so. The surrogacy industry hopes to overcome resistance, but with the subjugation issues--slavery issues, it is difficult to see that they can in the great state of Louisiana.

Few citizens have read the recent Supreme Court (USSC) decision, United States v Windsor, but each adult should read it.[3] The federal administration fabricated the case after agreeing to pay Windsor yet delaying the payment, so as to bring the case to the USSC. Everyone had agreed to pay Windsor, so the USSC had no adversaries for whom to conduct a case and should not have heard it, but did. Why? I can't guess. What was argued was not Windsor’s case, but Congress’s Defense of Marriage act. Unjustly and unconstitutionally, Congress defended marriage between a man and a woman as Judeo-Christian tradition, instead of defending it on the basis of human reproduction and related references to the objective truth. Congress sits idly while the USSC awards favor to self-proclaimed same-sex couples, exceeding the civic equality due each individual or single person, and the administration aggressively forces the harm on the nation. Don't forget: the harm originates from governance under "god?" imposed by the Congress in DOMA, and the alternative is governance of, by, and for the people, which has lain fallow for 226 years.

For years now, the USSC has taken the position that religion has lost its importance and is ceremonial: there lies the predictable outcome of governance under “god?”. Governance under “god?” has hindered governance under the ultimate justice of the people, even though, or perhaps because, the government considers “god?” ceremonial. That phantasm, "god?" distracts a people, not only the believers, from the objective truth. One of the reasons that it is such a powerful distraction is that politicians always employ the capital "G" to cite the phantasm. In one case, the Civil War, an attempt to govern under "god?" cost a people, this people, the equivalent of eight million persons based on today's population. Consider how much more powerful Abraham Lincoln's cautions would have been if he had avoided using the capital "G", or referred to governance under divisive theism, a specific branch of religion. Religion is important to believers, primarily for hope and comfort in the face of the unknown, but it must not be the basis of either civic decisions or civic divisions and it must not be the basis of civil law. No child should be forced to express in civic settings an allegiance to "god?" when neither he/she nor his/her parents have a contestant in the "god?" wars. And the number of people in this country who face the oppression of under "god?" now number about 73 million. No other oppressed minority is that large.  Association of a people must transcend the differing religions and no religion. The people must reform Congress and all legislative prayer in this regard. There should be no support for religion in civic governance: Laws must be based on the objective truth, leaving religious practices and decisions a private, inalienable right of each individual, much like choices in entertainment and avocations. Recalling a statement by Jim Robertson, Baton Rouge, "Anarchy, in a free system, is a Federal Judge believing and ruling that an unalienable right is a legal right.”

In the entire document that reports US v Windsor, there is no indication that, on the basis of procreation and care of children, same-sex couples are secondary or tertiary to heterosexual couples, yet that seems the objective truth. Also, there is no reference to equality of single adults and children; children are almost regarded as properties of families in the verbiage of the record. The verbiage takes for granted a gay-couple's right to objectify children and subject them to surrogacy and life without gender role-models. Role-models are a privation in lesbian couples as well. Thus, the lawyers of this country are deliberately skirting the objective truth in order to promote the agenda of false diversity and false equality. For all I know, Congress’s religious basis for DOMA, with no mention of the objective truth about same-sex marriage--surrogacy, gender role-models, and family evolution--and equality for singles, was a ruse. Machiavelli expressed in 1513 that governance under “god?” (in this venue Judeo-Christian tradition) is a ploy that works well to control the people. Politicians are versed in Machiavellian ideas such as: Involve “god?” and the people will feel safe regardless of their loss of justice. Or, even in a republic: Keep the people stirred up over “god?” and they won’t care what elected representatives are doing to them. Meanwhile, the people are so focused on “god?” they ignore the injustices they suffer. When I was a believer, I indolently felt that "god?" would prevail, because in the end my soul was saved. I now recognize my gullibility and that gullibility is one of the seven deadly sins; I think I know why Christianity left if off the list: gullibility of the believer empowers the dogma. The end of that ancient game is way beyond any person’s lifetime, unless the justice of the people terminates governance under "god?", at any time now, by committing to fulfill the preamble to the United States Constitution and initiate governance under the people who work to fulfill the eight goals.

Shockingly, the same-sex agenda attacks the preamble to the United States Constitution as the basis of United States governance. And they can, because the people have neglected the preamble for 226 years, I think preferring the apparent comforts of governance under "god?". This nation was created on June 21, 1788, when nine states ratified the US Constitution, the first civic document in US history that does not cite "god?" and the product of the first American convention that did not conduct prayer. But Congress hired ministers on May 1, 1789 to resume governance under “god?” to provide them authority and excuses, like they had done as the Confederation of States, instead of governance of, by, and for the people as specified by the Constitution and expressed by Abraham Lincoln.

The offense against the Constitution came in a radio-show review with two same-sex lawyers who plotted the USSC's negation of the people’s vote in California Proposition 8.

On the Diane Rehm show, June 24, 2014[4], citizen John stated,

I love the buzz words that fly around here. We've got diversity, equality and Constitution. [About] something not directly prohibited by the Constitution, the state has a right to make decisions. So you have the will of the people completely denied, overridden by social engineering people that use words like diversity and equality to push their agenda. But it has nothing that's any resemblance in reality.
Same-sex lawyer David Boies responded,
When the Constitution says, ‘We, the people of the United States,’ it really means, we, white male property owners. And every time we've tried to expand the "we," from the original limited set, it's upset people. It's upset people when we expanded it racially.
Bois lied, perhaps strategically choosing the word “means” instead of “meant,” and even that modification would maintain the lie. This is another racial-discrimination play by the same-sex lawyers, and it is particularly woeful, because some people cannot perceive that they are among the 94 % who the signers hoped would one day enjoy suffrage: most of us have overcome. The 1787 signers intended republican governance by the people: the informed people would elect patriotic representatives who would uphold the Constitution. They both fulfilled and disengaged the Declaration of Independence, which had cited a deistic "god?" and realized its 1776 purpose of defeating England's Protestant "god?" and declared, recalling the Magna Carta, that the king of England was only an equal man, not that slaves were equal. (Slavery was wrong, but the Declaration did not claim that slaves were equal.)
          The delegates to conventions for the nine ratifying states intended governance by the people, unjust as governance was in 1788. For example, many of them were abolitionists who predicted the end of slavery (happened) and some predicted that in a few decades Christianity would evolve to Unitarianism (did not happen). In the meantime, a Bill of Rights was demanded by some states. (I must learn if the nine were among them.) Back to the lie, in 1790, 6 % of the population could vote: today 100 % of non-criminals may vote. Same-sex people may vote. It is true that at each step in the expansion of voting rights, some people resisted, but ultimately, the justice of the people prevailed. Maybe Boies is either not an American or alienates himself, like Tories did when the preamble was written. However, I do not want his lie to dissuade anyone from volunteering to be of "We the People of the United States" as defined by the preamble: Everyone can fulfill the preamble, and that is what the signers wanted. Same-sex people can vote and can civically compromise.

I hope John’s telephone statement that the same-sex agenda opposes reality will rise to the USSC. Same-sex couples can’t procreate without help, which imposes extra biological and psychological risk to the children and any surrogate mother and her family. Same-sex couples cannot provide families that have integral role models, both male and female. In both functions, same-sex couples must negotiate surrogates. Gay couples who procreate separate the child from its biological mother and risk separating the mother from her family by death. Therefore, despite being equal individual persons, the same-sex couple is of neither equal civic benefit nor of equal civic interest compared to heterosexual couples who procreate or heterosexual couples who adopt children. Single persons carry the tax burden for procreation. Laws and services that discriminate against single persons in favor of married persons should be tediously adjusted to favor, in order, children, heterosexual couples who procreate, heterosexual couples who adopt, lesbian couples who have a plan for male role-modeling if needed, and monogamous gay couples. Promiscuous couples should have no favor over single people. Government should not run rough-shod over religious doctrine.

Same-sex monogamy is honorable and should be recognized, but it seems a detrimental route to procreation and child care, and therefore should not redistribute/dilute civic support for children. In the same way, heterosexual couples who do not procreate should not benefit from civic provisions to support children, and assignment of such benefits to children would improve civic justice. Since heterosexual couples who do not procreate can provide both male and female role models within an integral family, they occupy a civic interest for adoption that precludes society’s interest in a same-sex couple. Thus, the same-sex couple takes perhaps a third or fourth position in civic value and interest. Each individual has equal access to this information, seemingly the objective truth, which this writer does not know. I look to the ultimate justice of the people, the best hope of the world, borrowing words from Abraham Lincoln.

Often the same-sex agenda speaks for individuals who perceive they are of the sex opposite from their body. Recently, a judge in Maine ruled that she can use the high school girls' bathroom even though she has the body of a boy! Once again, a judge in Maine holds no respect for persons with girl's bodies. Who knows if or when she will change her mind--decide she's not she but he? What about respect for the persons with girl's bodies then? She presents a conventional girl's dress and demeanor, but what happens if and when someone falls in love with her, only to learn she cannot be a mother? Civic support for fungible personal opinion that your body misrepresents your person is as prudent and moral as honoring skillful scam artists. But what if nature works that way? What if genetic statistics mismatch persons and bodies? A published idea that I like is to change the US medical services system to pay-as-you-go for routine medical services, while providing catastrophic medical insurance for every newborn baby for life. Under the catastrophic insurance, a person could be allowed one operation in their lifetime to, for example, change her body to a girl's body, supplying ova from a donor. Otherwise, allow her to use the faculty bathroom, not the girl's bathroom. The point is, that gender governance based on personal opinion is not tenable. Governance must be based on the objective truth.

One of the functions of civic governance is to encourage each person to focus on the objective truth and the body of written law so as to take maximum advantage of their decades of life as their brief chance at life marches on. This is the fundamental reason for civic separation of church and state. However, some persons either inherited an intellectual preference that does not conform to their body, or, despite society’s best intentions and evidence, perceive that to be the case. Regardless, bonding with another person and discovering the mutual desire to support each other for life—monogamy--is so wonderful no one should discourage or attempt to interfere with the relationship. Monogamous bonding by persons regardless of their bodies is noble, and perhaps the human is the only animal species with that psychological capacity. Yet, society has the duty to not encourage interest in same-sex bonding, especially if the party doubts a hereditary role in their contemplation of the same-sex life. If a person is certain they are drifting into a choice, the consequences should be made clear to him/her by society, and the same-sex agenda's attempts at obfuscation should be held villainous.[5] And because same-sex bonding is perhaps a second or third option for maintaining a people through procreation, it should be against public policy: society should appreciate same-sex monogamists but not condone or support the same-sex choice and thereby protect children and women from subjugation. 

Copyright©2014 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Original, 6/29/2014 on promotethepreamble.blogspot.com 4 views before 03/04/16.
Revised August 4, 2014

---

[1] The same-sex rush, intentionally or not, provides the federal administration distraction to keep the people from focusing on the global weakness and economic vulnerability the administration is accumulating each day.

[2] See my essay, "Abraham Decided Not to Murder His Son," about four generations of a family rejecting ceremonial, religious human sacrifice. In my fiction about a fictional story, the cultural improvement would not have occurred without generation to generation influence. See understandtheknowledge.blogspot.com/ .

[3] Online: see www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307 .

[4] Online:  thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=19478, at about 42 minutes.

[5] I am reminded of a sentence by Abraham Lincoln:  "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."