Homosexual Activists File Federal Lawsuit in Nevada to Oppose Marriage

Marriage is the preeminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions.

The Trojan Horse of Domestic Partnership and Civil Union legislation is a cog in a cultural revolutionary strategy. The case in Nevada is the first time that Lambda Legal has used a federal court to attack a State Constitutional amendment which defended marriage as between a man and a woman. They asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and enjoin anyone from disagreeing. To limit marriage to heterosexual couples is not discriminatory now, nor has it ever been. Homosexual couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition.

P>LAS VEGAS, NV (Catholic Online) - We are in the midst of a Cultural Revolution in the West. I know  some of my readers, especially my detractors, will call such a claim alarmist and an overreach. However, the writing is on the wall and we all better read it and act. 

The foundation of Western Civilization is marriage between one man and one woman and the family and society founded upon it. The truth about marriage is not simply a "religious" construct.  The Natural Law reveals - and the cross cultural history of civilization affirms - that marriage is between one man and one woman, open to children and intended for life.

Marriage is the foundation for the family which is the privileged place for the formation of virtue and character in children, our future citizens. The family is the first society, first economy, first school, first civilizing and mediating institution and first government.

Marriage has been understood as arising out of the consent between one man and one woman and intended for life. It has been given a privileged and protected legal and social status, viewed as the primary civilizing institution constituted for the bearing and rearing of children. Within the family they can best be nurtured, loved, taught and prepared for citizenship and life in broader communities.

This understanding of marriage has long been understood in the West as revealed by the Natural Law. It was the basis of our organizing vision of society and informed our philosophy of governance. That included the place of subsidiarity, recognizing the family as the first government. Our educational system also recognized the family as the first school and parents as the first teachers.

We are experiencing a campaign to effectuate a radical change in our social order on all of these fronts. It is being done with verbal sophistication and utilizing a well funded legal strategy. Among the legal groups at the forefront of this Cultural Revolution is one called the "Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund".

On Tuesday, Aril 10, 2012, Lawyers for the Lambda legal Defense Fund filed a Federal Lawsuit in the United States District Court asking for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. The case is numbered 2:12-cv-00578 and styled, Sevcik & Baranovich, et al. v. Sandoval, et al.

This case is part of a National strategy to use the Courts to compel us to call what can't be a marriage to be one or face the punitive force of the Police Power of the State. The effort relies upon using the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, the "Equal Protection Clause", as a tool for enforcing a cultural revolutionary strategy. 

Referring to the eight homosexual partners who are the Plaintiffs the thirty page complaint argues, "They bring this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for the violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution caused by their being denied the right to marry in the State of Nevada (the "State").

"The State has instead relegated these couples to the inferior and novel status of registered domestic partnerships, and has disrespected the marriages some of them have entered in other jurisdictions, because they are lesbians and gay men in same-sex relationships."

The thirty page complaint continues, "Civil marriage plays a unique role in society as the universally recognized and celebrated hallmark of a couple's commitment to build family life together. Plaintiffs have formed committed, enduring family bonds equally worthy of the respect afforded by the State to different-sex couples through access to the status of marriage."

"Yet the State, without any adequate justification, has deprived lesbian and gay Nevadans of the right to marry, or to have their valid marriages from other jurisdictions recognized as marriages, based solely on their sexual orientation and sex. This discrimination (referred to herein as the State's "marriage ban") is enshrined both in Nevada statutes, and in article 1, section 21 of the Nevada Constitution, which limits marriage solely to couples composed of "a male and female."

The Trojan Horse of Domestic Partnership and Civil Union legislation is a cog in a cultural revolutionary strategy. This case in Nevada unmasks the goal of the Homosexual Equivalency Activists. This is the first time that Lambda Legal has used a federal court to attack a State Constitutional amendment which defended marriage as between a man and a woman. They have asked the Court to declare it unconstitutional and enjoin anyone from disagreeing.

The leaders of the homosexual equivalency movement insist that homosexual sexual practices are morally equivalent to the sexual expression of marital love between a man and a woman. However, they  go further, by insisting that every State make homosexual relationships legally equivalent to marriage. They are dedicated to building a society where the positive law of the Nation forces us to call to be a marriage what can never be a marriage - or face the police power of the State.

This complaint is filled with the Orwellian "newspeak" which accompanies this Cultural Revolution of the homosexual equivalency movement. There are two conflicting visions of the human person, human dignity, human sexuality, human freedom, human flourishing, marriage, family and the social order in conflict. The future of Western civilization hangs in the balance. 

This lawsuit is similar to legislation offered last year in Congress which called itself the "Respect for Marriage Act of 2011". If passed, it will eviscerate the protections of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal law and policy. It would force every State to recognize homosexual unions as marriages if the State from which the homosexual partners come from calls them "marriages." 

This legislation was supported by the Obama administration.  Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that he will not support the real Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of the United States in the myriad of lawsuits currently attempting to have it struck down by the Courts, even though it is the law of the land.

The verbal engineering and sophistry employed by the movement which opposed the Right to Life is being utilized in this effort. The moment the opponents of the actual Human Right, the Right to Life stole the word "choice" and used it to refer to the taking of innocent life in the womb for any reason and at any point, it was only a matter of time before they reframed the language in the public debate.

Those who defended the Right to Life became the opponents of a "Right to Choose". That was the first step. Look how far it has come. News reporters speak of something called an "abortion right". Abortion is an insidious act; the intentional killing of a child in the womb. It can have no rights. Only human persons can have rights. The first among those rights is the Right to Life which is denied in every procured abortion.

When sexual behavior between two men or two women is viewed as providing the legal and moral foundation of a "right" to marry - and those who oppose this homosexual equivalency movement are characterized as being against the "freedom" to marry and "marriage equality" - the revolutionary plan of the homosexual equivalency movement should be obvious to any honest observer.

The institutions of government should, when acting properly, defend marriage against those who would redefine it. Government has long regulated marriage for the common good. For example, the ban on polygamy and age requirements were enforced in order to ensure that there was a mature decision at the basis of the Marriage contract.

For Judges or legislatures to compel some feigned legal equivalency to co-habiting paramours (homosexual or heterosexual) and confer governmental benefits upon them does not further freedom it undermines it. It does not serve the common good, it injures it.

To limit marriage to heterosexual couples is not discriminatory now, nor has it ever been. Homosexual couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition. To "confer" the benefits that have been conferred in the past only to stable married couples and families to homosexual paramours is bad public policy.

The enforcers of this new order, whether ruling from the bench or misusing their office in the Legislative and Executive branch, unchecked by any balance of power, have followed what the legal positivists have long proclaimed, "The law is what the courts say it is." They have also joined a cultural revolutionary force more potentially lethal to the common good than Chairman Mao's reign of terror was to mainland China.

The Plaintiffs have asked a Federal Judge to engage in a form of "Judicial Alchemy". In the Middle Ages there were Alchemists claiming they were able to transmute common metals into gold. Folklore grew up among people of that age alleging the existence of a "philosopher's stone" which held the key to their being able to accomplish these impossible claims.

Lambda Legal uses the Court system as a new kind of "philosopher's stone". They use the language of constitutional law but their arguments have no Natural Law basis and are patently unconstitutional. A Judge can call anything a "right" in this age of legal positivism but that does not make it one. They ask the Court to make something ontologically incapable of being a marriage, Homosexual Partnerships, into a marriage by a Judicial Fiat, a Declaratory Judgment.

Judges who purport to make relationships between people of the same gender a "marriage" are abusing their office and perpetuating a radical cultural agenda. Marriage is the preeminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions. It is a relationship defined by nature and protected by the natural law that binds all men and women.

Judges cannot give anyone a "right" to marry; they can only recognize a marriage between people capable of contracting one. The institutions of government should be defending marriage against those who would redefine it.

Government has long regulated marriage for the common good. For example, the ban on polygamy and age requirements were enforced in order to ensure that there was a mature decision at the basis of the Marriage contract. To limit marriage to heterosexual couples is not discriminatory now, nor has it ever been. Homosexual couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition. The lawsuit in Nevada should be dismissed.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'

Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online