Unenumerated Constitutional Rights and Gov. Retreat from Regulation of Perverse, Transformative Phenomenalities of Eudaemonism

Unenumerated Constitutional Rights and Gov. Retreat from Regulation of Perverse, Transformative Phenomenalities of Eudaemonism

“There is a concept which corrupts and upsets all others. I refer not to Evil, whose limited realm is that of ethics; I refer to the infinite.”-George Luis Borges

This isn’t an easy post to write up. In trying to enumerate several of the issues and conflicts raised by the corrupt choice of a few state’s courts and legislatures to create a new homosexual marriage or homo civil union status regulated by government…I have focused on developing the issues rather than selecting politically correct language-these issues are bizarre and implicitly corrupting of the social order and forced upon society by organized elites.

We know that when the constitution was written a vast frontier existed beyond the eastern cities. Eudaemonistic license was largely ungovernable beyond collective class actions such as the right to own slaves or not. Many protections of the law were not enumerated because it would have been in effect impossible for many of today’s intense urban culture issues to exist. One might thus argue in favor of virtually any unenumerated topic as a right one has because the founders were not creative futurists enough to ban it a priori.

The science fiction writer and U.S. Naval Academy alumni Robert Heinlein in his Lazurus Long character foresaw where all of these social sexual issues would lead over a few thousand years as genetics became the determining parameters for marriage. Incest was o.k. for Lazarus Long when genome screening could accurately build a model of the health of any progeny and/or genetically modify the zygote’s genetic components in optimal bio-design laboratories…Lazarus Long even has sexual relations with his twin, cloned, female selves as precocious youth.

Heinlein’s science fiction ideas did not consider many of the macro-social or evolutionary biological effects of avoidance of inbreeding through genetic modification through scientific intervention nor the moral and spiritual decay of the human spirit.

The M.I.T. economist Lester Thurow once wrote that radical changes were needed to transform the traditional and presently inefficient U.S. economic structures and social formations. I tend to regard the abolitionistion of marriage as a heterosexual establishment as advocates of a Boston biological new horizon vision of a world organically transformed more along the behaviorist lines of B.F. Skinner. Trimming down human society to fit on the finite yet unbounded Earth is something like using nitro-glycerin to remove the dandelions from your front lawn. It is better to educate and inform human society explicitly of the extreme empirical challenges brought by manifest limits to growth and expect their voluntary support in conforming to new temporal guidelines than to slip in a morphing and pervasive transformation of human biology existentially.

Anyone writing in advocacy of contentious political points traditionally has encountered the Mill-Industrial delete the opposition voice through financial sanctions phenomenon of course. Societies with true free expression have been and are few. The more exceptional or articulate a minority political opponents voice is to a powerful establishment the more readily may the lone voice in the wilderness be silenced. The Internet era is no exception wherein wealthy corporations may buy up webpages or bribe web page managers to control publication they host. The U.S. broadcast media was consolidated under a few corporate powers more than a decade ago-political opposition is still targeted when practical by the age old practice of silencing dissent.

It is easy enough for Americans today to be aware that a Pandora’s box of legal and economic changes will be added through the leavening of homosexual marriage adulteration of marriage tradition. It would have been far better if an unrelated tradition of a different sort unrelated to marriage were developed to guarantee equal protection of the laws to those seeking to appropriate the financial advantages of heterosexual marriages to non-heterosexuals in some sort of relationship.

The founders never imagined insane sexed homosexual marriage as a potential issue-neither did they foresee that any of the revolutionaries might want to marry a cougar, bear, buffalo or Waldo Emerson’s brothers.

While there are sane biological reasons why close relatives should not marry-those considerations do not apply beyond the heterosexual realm. Laws forbidding first cousins to marry were not created because familiarity breeds contempt and divorce rates would increase harming tax revenues to pay down the federal debt.

Those anti-inbreeding laws were made in recognition of the biological facts of life of increased risk of deformity in progeny. Obviously those restrictions do not exist for fags (means gaf backwards)-perhaps fag denotes a repulsive bonding rather than an attractive one as a statement of opinion about the practice.

Perhaps there will be legal challenges in the future to unequal protection of marriage laws that let homosexuals marry brothers, sisters and first cousins while heterosexual. In an intense social order with development of games theory political and financial power structures the advantage of closer legal social bonding formations may be significant throughout society inclusive of the corporate business environment.

Marriage is founded in a heterosexual paradigm that cannot be equally transferred directly with the same sort of symmetry to the anti-matter of homosexual marriage. The surplus of matter in the universe after the annihilation of matter and anti-matter at the start is thought a result of a slight advantage the different spin of matter has over anti-matter. The subtle differences matter.

The New York homosexual marriage law change may enable brothers to marry, for sisters and first cousins to marry-so long as they are not heterosexual there is no biological reason for the proscription. Annihilating the rational, biological criteria for marriage and transforming it into an existential foundation will support the unraveling of the human social order. The largest Moslem organization in Pakistan rightly described the Gay Pride festivities held in the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan recently as ‘cultural terrorism’. The consequences of that crass disregard for Pakistani culture will likely be remembered for 30 years-a choice a government without supreme global confidence in its military dominance would not make.

The Constitution never mentioned marriage as it wasn’t a controversial issue of the day, common law marriages were common enough and religious ceremonies were sufficient social processes to recognize marriage.

Our correspondent from the future-one of the few tourists to the past these days because of some sort of decrease in population ahead provided several ideas on changes marriage deregulation might bring…

With state regulation of marriage developing perhaps through the county seat needs for registration of land and property inheritance claims and other concerns about limiting the criteria of permissible marriages in order to prevent inbreeding and/or social imbecility (this failed with some politicians) civil marriages or civil unions evolved into fact. With the recent increasing corporate control of the broadcast media a perverse sect of homosexuals has sought with success to lever their way into recognition as married couples in order to get the financial and social benefits of sane sex heterosexual marriage with same sex homosexual marriage.

Rationally states would retire from the regulation of marriage rather than broaden marriage suffrage existentially, for an unenumerated rights parameters might be increased without finite limit when the financial and legal motivation to do so exists.

It is easy to understand that laws against corporate marriage, against polygamy, polygamy and misc group marriages and exotic other animate and inanimate marriages would exclude citizens from structuring their own unenumerated civil rights to their own satisfaction. If a man or women wants to marry the Brooklyn Bridge the state should give them equal rights to do so.

As deregulation of the nation’s financial industry has developed to increase the efficiency of concentrating the nation’s wealth and foreign control of mortgages and employment, deregulation of marriage will increase the securitization of marriage relationships, of time-sharing marriages, of leveraged marriage buy-outs and a range of socially innovative marriage relationships designed to increase the efficiency of marriage as a function of capitalism and free trade.

The Moslem world allows a prosperous man to have four wives, and of course rent-wives exist. It is not a great leap forward to envision the American Dream evolving deregulated rent-wife industries to reduce unemployment, compensate for the failure of chattel slavery to continue to exist in modern America therein depriving sadists the pleasure of subjects to torment, create a trickle-down effect lifting the poor to property-owning status and deregulate poverty from its capture compelled in the regulation of marriage as a heterosexual institution to raise families and protect women from arbitrary and capricious state exploitation, abuse by wandering minstrels and hordes of savage horny dudes on horses.

With the new leftist ideology of deregulation from oppression of state marriage laws, marriage commodities speculators may be able to provide best on-time deliver of sexual satisfaction service even aboard in-flight airlines collaterally reducing the cost of extra baggage and in-flight concessions.

Arranged marriages and short selling through divorce may free up marriage capital for investors to create new frontiers of bound social relationships that protect individuals with chains of obligation from the anarchy and totalitarian power of government claves.

Best of all, marriage deregulation will end financial apartheid preventing the rich from consummating unlimited acquisition of worldly wealth and let corporate marriage survivors pass on their hard-earned family property, stocks, and savings without taxation to surviving shareholders in sexless communal bonding and the next generation of nurturing, sharing and caring shareholders.