British Law Makers to Force Churches to Perform Gay Marriage

British Law Makers to Force Churches to Perform Gay Marriage

new world orderEuropean Court of Strasbourg declares that gay marriage is not a human right.

European law makers were taken aback, and did not know what to say. However, upon the insistence by the gay lobbyists, they declared they would proceed with making same-sex marriage a reality.

The court went on to say that even if they tried to pass a law to make a same-sex marriage, that no church would be required to perform a same-sex marriage. And, they said, there would be a double standard of straight marriage vs same-sex marriage.


Continue reading British Law Makers to Force Churches to Perform Gay Marriage


9th Circuit Doomed to Fail Over Prop 8 Debacle

9th Circuit Doomed to Fail Over Prop 8 Debacle

Legal Issue: marriage is not an unalienable right, as proscribed by the declaration of independence and afterwards the constitution. You don’t have an unalienable right to get married. An unalienable right is something you are born with. An unalienable  right is not imposed on anyone else. You cannot force a woman to marry you. And, even if you tried, the first judge she came across, with half a brain, would nullify the marriage and make you pay for having to listen to your shenanigans.

Prop 8

The problem with the entire issue surrounding prop 8 is that secular society has adopted a religious ceremony, i.e. marriage, and the lines become more and more blurred.  However, the government cannot force secular people to call their union something different, no more than they can force ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for satanists. [ wouldn’t that be something eh? the bride all dressed in black and the groom in red … oh, anyway ]

So the super duper Liberal 9th circuit striking down prop 8 on the grounds of it being an unalienable constitutional right is completely preposterous. It’s like saying eating bologna is an unalienable  right. [ and oscar myer doesn’t taste anywhere near as good as it did when I was a kid ] Besides, the supreme court already ruled in favor of a prop 8 type of law before, well not exactly ruled in favor of it, but dismissed the lawsuit against it. [ at that level, you pay attention to dismissals as well ] [ 9th circuit is in for a world of hurt ]

By the way unalienable  is NOT the same as Inalienable. We’re talking legal English here, not school yard English. Go look up the difference.

Mark my words – 9th circuit [makes cutting motion to throat]

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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Please visit my legal website: Las Vegas DUI Lawyer
See me on YouTube: Seattle Cop Punches Black Teenage Girl

Is Gay Marriage a Social Issue or Just Another Money Grab

Is Gay Marriage a Social Issue or Just Another Money Grab

As a Libertarian, I think the notion that homosexual marriage is somehow a civil liberty is wrong. Marriage has never been originated by the state, to begin with, and as such is not a “civil liberty”. For people to even put the question to government, is ignorant in the first place.

What the “gay” [which I don’t even believe is a real distinction] people want is special dispensation to force private businesses to give them “rights” over an above their own self / business interests, i.e. insurance companies to be forced to throw out actuarial charts, documenting observable behavioral changes in humans that marry and have children, versus those that don’t and therefore are at lower risk for car accidents etc.

In the end this is not about a question of simply declaring a universal love for someone, it is about a lobby to make government force private business to do something, for money.

Until someone with some sense sheds light on this entire farce, everyone will be still debating this like it is some legitimate social issue, instead of the money issue it really is.

It is underhanded in the most vile sense of the word. Couch a money issue, inside of a social issue, with a heavy dose of guilt issues. It’s like the homosexual version of Inception.

For the very people talking about freedom, they are trying to force other “people” [businesses] to have their freedoms taken away.

This has never been about a civil liberty. In fact the entire debate is based on a blatant lie. Several national studies, recently conducted in the last year, found that only 15% of the entire “gay” population is even in a long term, committed relationship. So where is this outcry for legitimizing a “gay” relationship coming from? Certainly not the 85% who have no standing to even bring up the issue in a court of law, nor be redressed before congress. In fact that whole notion that there are these massive numbers of homosexuals out there is false also. The homosexual population is a mere 3%: 2% male and 1% female.

However, as we have seen, the best available data supports a lower estimate of 2.5 percent for male homosexuals and 1.4 percent for lesbians.

Again, this is about money, not civil rights; not civil liberties nor freedom. Almost no one in the national media even understands the ramifications of the issue, money.

Charts on Relationships

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
Source: Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census

Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170.



In April 2000, the governor of the state of Vermont signed a law instituting civil unions for homosexuals. The bill conferred 300 privileges and rights enjoyed by married couples upon same-sex partners who register their relationship with the town clerk and have their union solemnized by a member of the clergy or the justice of the peace.

Estimating the homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont: The number of homosexuals and lesbians in the state of Vermont may be estimated based on national studies. Contrary to the widely promulgated but inaccurate claims that up to ten percent of the population is homosexual, research indicates that homosexuals comprise one to three percent of the population. For example, a recent study in Demography relying upon three large data sets–the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census–estimated the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population to be 2.5 percent and the number of exclusive lesbians to be 1.4 percent.[21]

According to the 2000 Census, the adult population of Vermont is 461,304.[22] Based on theDemography study, a reasonable estimate of the number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont would be approximately 5,600 (2.5 percent of the adult male population) for male homosexuals, and approximately 3,300 (1.4 percent of the adult female population) for lesbians, for a total of approximately 8,900 homosexuals and lesbians. [Note: these are only rough approximations for purposes of statistical comparison.]

Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont who have entered into civil unions: USA Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions.[23] This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions.

By contrast, in Vermont, heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting couples by a margin of 7 to 1, indicating a much higher level of desire on the part of heterosexual couples to legalize their relationships.[24]

Sources:U.S. Census Bureau, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, 2; Black, “Demographics,” 141; U.S. Census Bureau Census 2000 Summary File 1; Bayles, “Vermont’s Gay Civil Unions,” 1; Census 2000 Special Reports, 4; Shane, “Many Swedes Say ‘I Don’t,'” 1; “ORL Backgrounder,” 1.
*Sources:Black, “Demographics,” 141; Census 2000 Special Reports, 4.

Finally, the entire issue of “gay” marriage is set on a backdrop of discrimination. Of course discrimination cannot be legislated away. But, what is telling is that one cannot discern off hand if someone is “gay” just by looking at them, outside of some blatant indication. That being said, the alleged discrimination that is reported might not be discrimination at all. What’s more, one would expect there to be reports of wide-spread discrimination, if one were to pay attention to the “gay” lobby.

Once again the DATA does not support this notion of widespread discrimination.

Women(%) Men(%)
Employment benefits 58 40
Taxes 47 37
Insurance 46 34
Membership 20 11
Credit/banking 15 10
Employment 14 13
Housing 11 11
Hotels 6 6
Hospital visitation 6 2
Adoption 5 2
Foster care 3 2
Other 7 4
None/none indicated 23 34

What is telling is that the most talked about discrimination in the entire “gay” marriage issue is about Hospital visitation. However, as the DATA shows, only 2% of “gay” couples encountered any discrimination in Hospital visitation. The highest point of discrimination reported was among Employment benefits. However, with a casual glance at the prior data, one finds that most “gay” couples change partners within one year. Is it discriminatory for companies to rightly deny benefits to an ever changing partner of a “gay” employee. Is it discriminatory to deny insurance benefits to an employee that always changes partners on a yearly basis. This   is clearly supported by the DATA: a staggering 42% of all “gay” relationships do not see a 3rd year and a huge 71% never see a 7th year.

So do insurance companies, which base a majority of their coverage decisions based on regular human behavioral patterns, have a business right to deny coverage of an ever changing partner? Can an insurance company cover a married employee when all DATA points to a 57% chance that the employee will remain married for at least 15 years or a 50% chance he will remain married for more than 20 years? Depending on the job, 20 years of continuous employment can qualify an employee for retirement. It is then reasonable for an insurance company to agree to cover an employee in a group where 20 years of a continuous partner is assured, versus an employee in a group where not even 1 year of a continuous partner is assured.


Taking all religious talk out of the conversation, the issue of “gay” marriage is not about any social civil liberty that is being denied. It is about money. The points that are being made by the “gay” lobby is not supported by any DATA available today, in fact all DATA points against the very issues brought up by the “gay” lobby: a high demand for “gay” marriage; massive discrimination; a high demand for same-sex child rearing. At less than 2% in most instances, there is no high demand for the issue.

What the DATA does show is that:

  • only 3% of the population is “gay”
  • 42% of the “gay” population do not have a relationship that lasts longer than 3 years
  • 85% of the “gay” population do not have relationships that last more than 10 years
  • a staggering 96% of all “gay” relationships are not monogamous
  • of those that have a “gay” relationship, only 22% even live together
  • of those living together in a “gay” relationship, less than 1% actually live with children
  • the above statistic is misleading because only 8% of the 22% actually have children living with them, so saying less than 1% of “gay” households live with children actually saying less than 1% of 1% of the gay population –  66,225 out of 4,040,000.
One could easily say, there is no proof of a demand for “gay” marriage; no proof of a demand for “gay” parenting; and no proof of a  demand for less discrimination against “gay” couples.

Once again, this seems like a very small group of individuals are making a money grab and putting it in a very emotional issue. This is a simple repeat of what we now all see happening on wall street, congress and in the banking industry. Make the people emotional. Divide them on a moral ground. Pass legislation. Steal profits from the U.S. tax payer.

Please visit my legal website: Las Vegas DUI Lawyer
See me on YouTube: Seattle Cop Punches Black Teenage Girl

This Marriage Thing

What is Marriage?

For the most part, people have no idea what marriage is.  When you then start to talk about gay marriage, or bestiality or man boy love, then you don’t have a foundation to stand on, to even begin to argue your points.  Let’s do away with all this nonsense of not understand, define what marriage is and where it came from, so that when someone comes to you saying they “really love their dog”, you can refute them with a sound argument and them which way, how, and when they can go to hell, in the most polite way possible.  For the children!  Because, I always do things for the children [joke].  Before we can define what we “think” marriage is today, let’s look at where marriage came from.  Nothing on this planet, just happens right here and now.  You must know where it came from to even begin to be an adult and have some wisdom.  How can you begin to understand why the Koreans hate the Japanese if you have no clue about their wars that they fought?  You’d be operating out of a place of ignorance and not one of wisdom.  So let’s take a look at where marriage came from.

History of Marriage

First of all, let’s go back to ancient times.  Contrary to popular European belief, there was no rampant promiscuity going on in early man.  All empirical evidence points to early man actually taking in wives and living a monogamous life.

All authorities agree that during historical  times promiscuity has been either non-existent or confined to a few small groups. Did it prevail to any extent during the prehistoric period of the race? Writing between 1860 and 1890, a considerable number of anthropologists, such as Bachofen, Morgan, McLennan, Lubbock, and Giraud-Teulon, maintained that this was the original relationship  between the sexes among practically all peoples. So rapidly did the theory win favour that in 1891 it was, according to Westermarck, “treated by many writers as a demonstrated truth” (History of Human Marriage, p. 51). It appealed strongly to those believers in organic evolution who assumed that the social customs of primitive man, including sex relations, must have differed but slightly from the corresponding usages among the brutes. It has been eagerly adopted by the Marxian Socialists, on account of its agreement with their theories of primitive common property and of economic determinism. According to the latter hypothesis, all other social institutions are, and have ever been, determined by the underlying economic institutions; hence in the original condition of common property, wives and husbands must likewise have been held in common (see Engles, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State”, tr. from German, Chicago, 1902). Indeed, the vogue which the theory of promiscuity for a time enjoyed seems to have been due far more to a priori considerations of the kind just mentioned, and to the wish to believe in it, than to positive evidence.

Ancient marriage and even more recent historical marriage wasn’t the romanticized thing that we want to think it means today.   The fact is, marriage was for one thing and one thing only: to produce children.  This production of children in early man was a very desperate need.  We don’t think of this as a need these days with 6.7 billion people on the planet.  Now we see children as a nuisance and a drain on the money.  Before children were seen as a little more than slave labor force. 

After careful consideration, due to children being the product of marriage, quite a few smart fellows saw a great opportunity to get marriage to do for them what a sword couldn’t, i.e. make peace.

When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.

So marriage could quell wars, and build an economic bond between two people, with a free labor force, depending on the fertility of the woman.  Let’s focus on this for a second.  Imagine this, just you getting a roommate, who shares all of your expenses equally, cuts down on your own personal expenditure of expenses.  Now jump to the idea of being married.  You’ve not only cut down your expenses, but all of your needs are taken care of [yes ladies AND guys, I said all] and your wealth grows.  Now add in kids, who work for you for free, basically.  Your production goes up, assuming you have a business that needs laborers, and your wealth, again, grows.  As your children grow and marry, you create a tiny empire unto yourself.  Then, you go into an agreement with another man, such as yourself, and agree to pool your empire with his empire through the marriage of your child to his.

Rights in Marriage

Everyone talks about rights and rights in marriage.  The truth is heterosexual couples have been and still are fighting for rights and freedoms away from the federal govern.  What about ancient historical marital rights?  Let’s look at Rome and Greece:

In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution. Indeed, the great lawgiver Solon once contemplated making marriage compulsory, and in Athens under Pericles bachelors were excluded from certain important public positions. Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn.

 However, while marriage was deemed important, it was usually treated as a practical matter without much romantic significance. A father arranged the most advantageous marriage for his son and then had a contract signed before witnesses. Shortly thereafter a wedding celebration was held and the young couple (who might never have met before) was escorted to bed. All marriages were monogamous. As a rule, the bridegroom was in his thirties and the bride was a teenager. In addition to this disparity in ages there also existed an inequality in education and political rights. Women were considered inferior to men and remained confined to the home. Their main function as wives was to produce children and to manage the household while their husbands tended to public affairs. For their erotic needs, men often turned to prostitutes and concubines.

Marital rights started and ended on the question of legal inheritance.  Again, it’s about the kids, the offspring.  The marriage itself is never concerned with if the man loves the woman and how well they get along.  The marriage is concerned about did she produce children and does she sleep around… in case she produces illegitimate children.

The Heart of Marriage

All of this article is going to fall on its face with this next sentence.  Everything said thus far about marriage, only concerned men who had money.  If you did not have money, or rights [as in you weren’t a citizen] it didn’t matter what you did.  For the most part, in western civilization, marriage and marriage rights revolves around property owners.  If you don’t own property, who cares who you marry and who’s going to inherit your non-property.

This entire pop culture reference to marriage then, is a farce and a scam.  If you don’t “establish” yourself, i.e. get married, build a house and own land, then you’re pretending to have a life.  This comes full circle to the economic situation we are in now.  This stupid practice of credit and building credit is nothing more than a ploy to get you to give away all of your rights, property and money.  Bear with me here.  People were being expected to move and buy a new house every 2 years, to make a profit on the old house.  However, if you were to go back to the way a wealthy person lives, you’d establish a family base, buy land, build a house, get married, have children and pass all of that on to your children.  Your children then have nearly nothing in their life to worry about except building the family wealth even more and passing it on to their children.

With sound economic sense and the wisdom to realize how marriage is really intended to be used, even a poor man can achieve wealth and be safe and secure in his home.  At the heart of this all is marriage.

The Libertarian View on Gay Marriage

How Libertarians Should View the Gay Marriage Debate

Gay Marriage

Since I received hate male about my article that presented all of the legal arguments surrounding gay marriage, I am going to take a completely different road and come out of left field and derail the entire issue altogether.

I will show you why a libertarian government would be the best government for all parties concerned, both gay and straight.  Everyone thinks a third party has no chance in hell in running the country: i.e. both houses and the presidency, but let me show you how your current system avoids the tough issues and keeps everyone at each other’s throats with no hope of a real solution, nor discussion.

Libertarians on Gay Marriage

To put the debate simply, as it stands now, the straight people [ YES Democrats and Republicans] are nearly all against gay marriage.  The gay people are for gay marriage [ I haven’t done a survey, but I believe that is the current stance of the gay community, correct me if I’m wrong ]  Both sides then go to the government and seek redress on the issue.  In fact not a few political campaigns have derailed over the issue.  It is one of the most important issues to the gay community so when they seek to endorse someone, they use the gay marriage litmus test.  Also prominent figures pander to the gay community using gay marriage as their battle cry to increase their own wealth, popularity etc.

But, let me present you with the Libertarian view on the entire subject.

  • as a Libertarian all men are responsible for their own actions
  • as a Libertarian all men are responsible for their own financial freedom
  • as a Libertarian all men are responsible for their own personal belief systems
  • as a Libertarian it is not the place of government to impinge upon the personal belief systems of any individual, unless it poses a direct threat to life, limb and property
  • as a Libertarian it is not the place of government to use force to make individuals to acquiesce to majority value systems

Understand that a Libertarian government would not even have such a debate.  Nor, could a Libertarian government be used to force the majority to listen to the minority.  And, that’s what pisses both sides off about Libertarians.  Both sides wish to play politics so the Dem / Repub system works for them.  If there was a Libertarian government you could go down the path only so far.  Why?  Because you could have your freedom, but then you would have absolutely no recourse to force the other side to your viewpoint.  Under the current system, you don’t have your freedoms, but you can force your viewpoint on the masses, even a minority of the populace.

Libertarian = Liberty

Look at the welfare system.  Granted this isn’t true for all, but hypothetically speaking: if a man squanders away all of his money, under the current system he can then force the majority of people who saved their money, to give him some more money.  This is the current system we live under.  Under a Libertarian government, if that same man squandered his money… oh well!  Better go to Catholic Charities.

As a Black man, I think the Libertarian form of government would be much more conducive to Black people getting ahead financially and socially.


I think for this particular debate, the gay community should seriously take a look at the Libertarian party.  The Democrats and Republicans are not on their side on this particular debate.  Oh, I know some politicians pay lip service to the gay community, but the Democrats and Republicans as a whole are not for Gay marriage.  The only reason they did not go along with George Bush on the whole Constitutional Amendment, is because they saw it as political suicide.  That is the only reason.

 Please visit my legal website: DUI
See me on YouTube: Shakaama Live
Need a Notary in Las Vegas Nevada Notary Public Nevada

Are Gays really Seeking Equality in "Marriage"?

due to gay outcry I have been forced to take this story down that presents legal arguments FOR and against gay marriage down.

Regardless of  the actual content of the article, apparently just mentioning gay is now grounds for lawsuit and corporate backlash.