The Marriage Equality Act is Illegal

This is posted here FYI — be advised, it is posted here as received in unedited form.
~TEANewYork Admin

***********************
To whom it may concern:

Please read the following information from my letter below, as it will clearly explain, I believe, that the 2011 NEW YORK MARRIAGE EQUALITY ACT, as currently written, is legally defective and seriously flawed to the point of illegality; meaning this Act as currently written does not provide the currently claimed legal authority to legitimize supposedly same sex marriage in New York (�NY�) State and, as such, this Act should be rescinded by the NY Legislature and all so called same sex marriages performed under this Act should be deemed null and void.

THE 2011 NY MARRIAGE EQUALITY ACT APPEARS TO ONLY LEGALLY ALLOW SAME SEX PERSONS TO MARRY PERSONS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX:

A review of the 2011 Marriage Equality Act (�Act�) clearly reveals, I believe, that this Act is facially, legally defective and seriously flawed, to the point of illegality. In this respect, the NY Legislature did not even attempt to enumerate its claimed new fundamental due process right to same sex marriage in that Act and the legal terminology of �Constitution� and �due process� are not even directly mentioned in that same Act.

The NY Legislature, in Section 3 of this Act, under the heading, �Legislative intent,� only states �Marriage is a Fundamental Right.�  However, the NY Legislature never specifically and directly drafted language, in that Act, granting same sex persons a new fundamental due process right to same sex marriage, or even a new fundamental right to same sex marriage.  Instead, the NY Legislature, in this Act, only appears to have simply transferred the existing fundamental due process right to marriage for opposite sex persons to same sex persons.

In this regard, Section 3 of the Act only states; �No government treatment of legal status, effect, right benefit, privilege or responsibility RELATING TO MARRIAGE, whether DERIVING FROM statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of law, shall differ based on the parties to the marriage being or having been of the same sex rather than a different sex (emphasis added).

The problem with Section 3 of this Act is, as per the majority finding of Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006), and up until the enactment of the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act on June 24, 2011 (with an effective date of July 24, 2011), opposite sex persons, in NY State, only had a fundamental due process right to opposite sex marriage under the NY Domestic Relations Law and this Law�s ultimate source of authority, the Due Process Clause of the NY Constitution.  Moreover, under the NY Constitution and NY Domestic Relations Law, opposite sex persons never had a fundamental due process right to same sex marriage (and why would they want that?).  The Hernandez decision was the very reason the NY Legislature and Governor passed and enacted the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act five years later; however, as already indicated I believe they failed in their first unlawful attempt to undemocratically and unconstitutionally legislate same sex marriage through the 2011 NY Marriage
Equality Act.

The end result of all of this legal confusion is the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act appears to only have transferred the existing fundamental due process right of marriage for opposite sex persons to same sex persons; meaning the only fundamental due process right same sex persons (with respect to marriage) currently have under the NY Constitution, all its derivative laws (including the NY Domestic Relations Law), and the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act, is to marry persons of the opposite sex.    Moreover, this Act appears to have failed to actually legally authorize same sex marriage in NY State.  Quite a legal paradox!

This legal confusion is the direct result of the NY Legislature and Governor sidestepping the common law of New York — the binding precedent of the Hernandez decision, that really required that the NY Legislature to �democratically� amend the NY Constitution (specifically Article XIX, Section 1 or Section 2) if it decided to unwisely attempt to create a new fundamental due process right to same sex marriage in the NY Constitution.  Remember, all NY laws, including the NY Domestic Relations Law, derive their ultimate legal authority from the NY Constitution (meaning a law dealing with fundamental rights cannot validly and legally exist independent of the NY Constitution; as I believe is the present illegal situation with the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act).

Because the NY Legislature unlawfully attempted, in that Act, to unconstitutionally create a new fundamental due process right to same sex marriage that never existed in the NY Constitution (as per the Hernandez decision), including implicitly in application, in any �statute, administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of law� as relates to marriage, including the NY Domestic Relations Law, from 1894 (the year of ratification of NY�s Fourth Constitution) up until the day before the illegal enactment of NY Marriage Equality Act on June 24, 2011, the NY Legislature cannot legally attempt to create a new fundamental due process right to same sex marriage out of thin air.  The NY Legislature could only attempt to amend the NY Constitution � this is one of the primary reasons for the amendment provisions in the NY Constitution � to attempt to add new fundamental rights that were never explicitly or implicitly intended by the original ratifiers of th
e 1894 NY Constitution.

This result (i.e., a common law requirement to officially amend the NY Constitution, pursuant to Article XIX, Section 1 or Section 2, in order to legally attempt to add a claimed new fundamental due process right) is only required where the NY Court of Appeals has previously held, as it did in its Hernandez decision, that a claimed fundamental due process right never existed in the NY Constitution; either explicitly (e.g., since the 1894 ratifiers did not include same sex marriage as a fundamental due process right in the NY Constitution), or implicitly as in application (e.g., the 1894 ratifiers of the NY Constitution also never intended that same sex marriage ever be considered an implicit fundamental due process right under the �liberty right�  of the Due Process Clause of the NY Constitution, as effectuated through the current NY Marriage laws of 1894 and all subsequent NY marriage laws (including the NY Domestic Relations Law), up until their judicial review, by the Hern
andez Court, to determine whether same sex persons were also entitled to the fundamental right to marriage under those laws).

Logically, this process of Judicial Review, which is inextricably intertwined with the Balance of Powers Doctrine, absolutely requires that the NY Legislature officially amend the NY Constitution if it chooses to attempt to add a new fundamental due process right that the NY Court of Appeals previously found never existed in the NY Constitution.  Judicial review allows the NY Court of Appeals to review and declare the constitutionality or agreement with the NY Constitution (or lack thereof) of legislative enactments, such as laws, statutes, ordinances, etc., that have been brought before the Court for review in a legal case properly within its jurisdiction.  Since the Hernandez Court found that same sex marriage never existed as a fundamental due process right in the NY Constitution, implicitly in application through NY State Marriage Laws (specifically the NY Domestic Relations Law), prior to 2006, there is absolutely no way a new fundamental due process right to same sex ma
rriage can ever exist in the NY Constitution, subsequent to the 2006 Hernandez decision, without first the NY Constitution having been officially amended, under Article XIX, Section 1 or Section 2.  Put another way, the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act cannot legally create a new fundamental due process right to same sex marriage in the NY Constitution because the ultimate authority for that claimed fundamental right has to first come from the NY Constitution, itself.

Of course this revelation means that as part of any new lawsuit, a temporary restraining order on all future (claimed) same sex marriages should be requested along with requesting all (claimed) same sex marriages performed since the enactment of that illegal Act be deemed null and void due to the obvious illegality of the 2011 Marriage Equality Act, as currently written.  In conclusion, the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act appears to only legally allow same sex persons to marry persons of the opposite sex.

Please review a copy of the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act, along with the Hernandez decision in order to verify the accuracy of these claims.

The purpose of this letter is twofold.  First, I am requesting, as a NY Citizen, with the right to vote, that the NY Legislature propose a new bill rescinding the illegal 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act.  Second, if the NY Legislature is unwilling to rescind that Act, I am requesting Christian legal advocacy groups to file a new lawsuit raising new causes of action (specifically, the violation, by the NY Legislature and Governor, of the Amendment Provisions, Article XIX, Section 1 and Section 2, of the NY Constitution; the violation, by the NY Legislature and Governor, of a New York citizen�s fundamental right to vote, pursuant to Article II, Section 1, of the NY Constitution, since NY voters were never given an opportunity to vote on a proposed same sex marriage amendment; and the violation of a NY citizen’s procedural due process, pursuant to Article 1, Section 6 of the NY Constitution, since not given fair process before that right to vote on a proposed same sex marriage ame
ndment was taken away) based on the illegal enactment of the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act by the NY Legislature and Governor.

I feel the current ongoing lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act did not address the following information and did not sue all possible Defendants responsible for the illegal and unconstitutional enactment of the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act, including the NY Assembly and Governor and that a new lawsuit, if possible, should be filed (representing these new legal concerns) against the NY Assembly, Senate, Attorney General and Governor by a consortium of legal Christian advocacy groups (STRENGTH IN NUMBERS).  The 2011 New York Marriage Equality Act is an immoral and unconstitutional law and it should be overturned for the following additional reasons.

My reference to the questionable constitutionality of same sex-marriage is based on my belief that the NY Marriage Equality Act (enacted five years after the Hernandez decision was decided) is in effect, a de facto, illegal amendment to the NY Constitution; since the voting citizens of NY were never given the opportunity to vote in a state constitutional referendum (as required by Article XIX, Section 1 of the NY Constitution) to allow same sex marriage to be allowed or disallowed, as a new fundamental due process right (per the Hernandez decision). However, since this legal issue was not addressed in the current ongoing lawsuit against the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act, the NY judiciary has not yet addressed this important constitutional issue.

The provision in the NY Constitution that prevents same sex marriage ultimately comes from the Due Process Clause, Article I, Section 6, of the NY Constitution that states; “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”  The fundamental (substantive) due process right to marriage for opposite sex persons, (which is not directly defined in the NY Constitution), ultimately comes from Article I, Section 6, of the NY Constitution (it is considered an unenumerated fundamental due process right legally assumed to have existed, by the Hernandez Court, as a “liberty” right under the Due Process Clause of the NY Constitution) that existed in subsequent legislative enactments of new laws regulating opposite-sex marriage, specifically the NY Domestic Relations Law, over the past two centuries in NY State; and that, ultimately, the original ratifiers of the 1894 New York Constitution would have intended to be a fundamental due process right under o
ne of the explicit rights (i.e., life, liberty or property) they listed under the Due Process Clause of the NY Constitution when they updated and ratified the 1894 NY Constitution.

However, using its power of Judicial Review, this implied fundamental due process right to marriage was found, by the New York Court of Appeals, in Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006), to not apply to same sex persons, under the Due Process Clause, of the NY Constitution.  It also needs to be remembered that the concurring opinion in Hernandez, although much more liberal in its opinion of how the NY Legislature should attempt to legalize same sex marriage, is not part of the main majority Hernandez opinion, including the majority holding and derivative findings.

Under the STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, the NY courts, including the NY Court of Appeals, have the jurisdictional authority to review laws, statutes and ordinances, etc. (e.g., NY marriage laws), that have their ultimate authority in the primary enabling document of NY State government — that is the NY Constitution (all legally valid laws of NY State ultimately owe their source of existence to one or more fundamental rights explicitly or implicitly derived from the NY Constitution).  It is the doctrine of judicial review that allows the NY Courts, and ultimately, the New York Court of Appeals, to check for the constitutional validity of all legislative enactments that come before their courts as part of lawsuits questioning the constitutional validity of these legislative enactments; such as the validity of the NY Domestic Relations Act which was judicially reviewed, under the Due Process Clause of the NY Constitution, by the Hernandez Court.  The Hernandez Court, in reviewin
g existing marriage laws in NY State, specifically the NY Domestic Relations Law, considered Article I, Section 6 of the NY Constitution.

Some legal commentators of the Hernandez decision have told me, somewhat incorrectly, that, because same sex marriage was not specifically excluded as a fundamental right in the NY Constitution, there was no legal impediment preventing the NY Legislature from unilaterally legalizing same sex marriage in NY.  They are correct in their legal opinion up to a certain point � meaning, under New York common law, the NY Legislature�s and Governor�s enactments of all laws, including the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act, are all presumed valid and constitutional until shown otherwise.  However, if a new lawsuit were filed against the NY Marriage Equality Act on constitutional grounds for violating the amendment requirements of the New York Constitution (Article XIX, Section 1 and Section 2), it�s a whole different ball game; based on the binding legal precedent in the Hernandez decision.  On judicially reviewing the constitutional validity of the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act, the NY cou
rts, and specifically the NY Court of Appeals, would be very hard pressed not to hold that this new Act (which implicitly claims to create a new fundamental due process right to same sex marriage independent of the Due Process Clause of the NY Constitution � remember the NY Constitution was never officially amended to include a new fundamental due process right to same sex marriage before that claimed new fundamental right was purported to have been created and illegally authorized by the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act), is unconstitutional under the legally binding precedent of the Hernandez decision.

In this respect, the Hernandez court explicitly stated, in its decision, that; �THIS COURT IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY AS TO THE MEANING OF THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION (emphasis added).�  This binding interpretative authority is called stare decisis (until overturned).  The Hernandez case has not been overturned.  The foregoing legal conclusions mean that if a new lawsuit were filed against the constitutionality of the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act because the NY Legislature failed to officially amend the NY Constitution first, pursuant to Article XIX, Section 1 or Section 2, before it unilaterally granted a new fundamental due process right to so called marriage for same sex persons, the NY courts, including the New York Court of Appeals, should find the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act unconstitutional based on the binding legal precedent of the Hernandez Court.

The Court, in Hernandez, held that it was not compelled to recognize same sex marriage under the NY Constitution.  It was not so compelled because, as part of its majority decision, the Hernandez Court also found that same sex persons had no fundamental (substantive) due process right to marriage under existing NY Marriage Laws, specifically the NY Domestic Relations Law, when reviewed under the explicit (i.e., the Due Process Clause) and (derivative) implicit fundamental due process rights granted by the NY Constitution, itself.  In can be directly inferred, then, from the Hernandez decision that this Court did not believe the original ratifiers of the NY Constitution, specifically the Fourth Constitution  of NY, ratified in 1894 (and as significantly modified by the 1938 NY Constitutional Convention), would have ever intended that subsequently (up until 2006) enacted NY marriage laws (ultimately deriving their authority from the �liberty� right of the Due Process Clause of
the NY Constitution), would have been applied as a fundamental due process right to marriage for same sex persons.

Conversely, if the Hernandez Court had (after reviewing NY marriage laws, specifically the NY Domestic Relations Law, up until 2006), found this supposed right to same sex marriage had always existed (e.g., from the time the 1894 NY Constitution was ratified), as an implicit fundamental due process right, pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the NY Constitution, it would have been compelled to recognize same sex marriage in 2006.  Remember, the ultimate authority for enacting all NY State laws, ordinances and statutes, etc., relating to fundamental rights, like marriage, comes from the NY Constitution.  It can be concluded from the Hernandez decision that the NY Legislature had to attempt to officially amend the NY Constitution before unconstitutionally attempting to unilaterally grant a new fundamental due process right to marriage for same sex persons through the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act.  A claimed fundamental right that the Hernandez Court found, had, it can be infe
rred, never existed in the NY Constitution, at least from 1894 up until 2006.

Since no fundamental due process right (i.e., a right that the 1894 ratifiers of the NY Constitution intended to exist at the time they drafted and enacted the 1894 NY Constitution) to same sex marriage did not exist in the NY Constitution as of the 2006 Hernandez decision, the NY Legislature cannot unilaterally create a new fundamental right (as it unconstitutionally attempted to do with the 2011 Marriage Equality Act) that had never existed before in the NY Constitution (as per the Hernandez decision).

Instead, the NY legislature could only “DEMOCRATICALLY” attempt to AMEND the NY Constitution by drafting a proposed amendment (with respect to its unwise same sex marriage proposal) and then send it to the voting citizens of NY to vote on in a state constitutional referendum (as per Article XIX of the NY Constitution).  This, I believe, is the democratic process, referred to by the Hernandez Court in its decision, when it deferred the issue of same sex marriage to the NY Legislature.

It was also argued by one antifamily supporter of same sex marriage, with respect to the Hernandez decision; “Lack of compulsion is not an obstacle to future change.  The court is clear that the Legislature can and should resolve the issue, one way or the other.”  Actually, the Court said the NY Legislature should resolve the issue �AS WISELY AS IT CAN;� not, “one way or the other.”  With respect to the argument about “lack of compulsion is not an on obstacle to future change,” all NY laws, upon judicial review, still have to comport with the NY Constitution and all relevant NY Court of Appeals� decisions.  Hence, the NY Legislature can still unwisely attempt to bring about “future change” by creating an alleged, new fundamental due process right by “DEMOCRATICALLY” attempting to amend the NY Constitution under Article XIX, Section 1 or Section 2.

While the Hernandez Court did defer the issue of recognition of same sex marriage to the NY Legislature, this Court never said the NY Legislature could violate the NY Constitution in attempting to legalize same sex marriage.  Specifically, where the Hernandez Court states; “[W]e believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives.  We therefore express our hope that the participants in the controversy over same-sex marriage will address their arguments to the Legislature; that the Legislature will listen and DECIDE AS WISELY AS IT CAN; and that those unhappy with the result�as many undoubtedly will be�will respect it as people in a democratic state should RESPECT CHOICES DEMOCRATICALLY MADE (emphasis added).”

Based on this finding of the Hernandez Court, to “DECIDE AS WISELY AS IT CAN,” the NY Legislature had only two options to �democratically� (i.e., based on the NY Constitution) attempt to legalize same sex marriage.  Since the NY Legislature failed to avail itself of either of these two democratic options, I believe the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act is unconstitutional.

First, pursuant to Article XIX, Section 1, of the NY Constitution, the NY Legislature could  “democratically” attempt to amend the NY Constitution; a very complicated and time consuming process (see generally NY Constitution, Article XIX, Section 1).  Once the NY Legislature’s proposed amendment (claiming to allow same sex marriage as a new fundamental due process right) is proposed and drafted, Article XIX, Section 1, of the NY Constitution, requires that it be presented to the voting citizens of NY State for a vote in a state constitutional referendum.  Further, under Article XIX, Section 1, of the NY Constitution, if the NY Legislature’s proposed amendment is approved and ratified by a majority of those voters, such amendment, originally and “democratically” proposed by the NY Legislature, would become part of the NY Constitution.  I hope and pray, however, that the majority of “wise” voting citizens of NY State would vote down such a proposed immoral new amendment to the
NY Constitution.  However, be that as it may, the NY Legislature never attempted to undertake this first democratic legal option.

What could be more DEMOCRATIC than allowing the voting citizens of NY to �democratically� directly vote (i.e., pure democracy of the Athenian form) on a new proposed law that purports to create a new fundamental due process right that had not previously existed (per Hernandez’s decision) in the NY Constitution?  I would hope and pray, however, that such an attempt would fail through this aforementioned democratic process (i.e., a New York State constitutional referendum).

Second, pursuant to under Article XIX, Section 2, of the NY Constitution, the NY Legislature could wait until 2017 in an unwise attempt to �democratically� legalize immoral same sex marriage through a state constitutional convention; a very complicated and time consuming process (see generally NY Constitution, Article XIX, Section 2).  Nonetheless, the NY Legislature never attempted to undertake this second democratic legal option.

(Remember, the NY Legislature cannot possibly, unilaterally create a new fundamental due process right through the passage of a new law (2011 NY Marriage Equality Act comes to mind) that previously the highest court in NY (i.e., the NY Court of Appeals) found never existed in the NY Constitution (per Hernandez).  How can the NY Legislature create a new fundamental due process right that the NY Court of Appeals found never existed in the NY Constitution?  That claimed fundamental right has to first exist in the NY Constitution before the NY Legislature can create news laws (such as the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act) based on that new fundamental right.   Currently, the NY Constitution does not constitutionally authorize (as per the Hernandez decision), either explicitly or implicitly, same sex marriage as a fundamental due process right.  Therefore, the NY Courts, including the NY Court of Appeals, upon judicially reviewing the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act, should find that A
ct UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on the legally binding precedent of the Hernandez decision (unless this decision is overturned first and this has not yet happened).  The Legislature proposes and drafts new laws, the Executive enacts and executes the laws, and the Judiciary is the sole final interpreter (judicial review) of the meaning of all NY laws in light of the NY Constitution.  The Legislature can never be the final interpreter of the meaning of the NY Constitution and cannot unilaterally create, claimed, new fundamental rights independent of the NY Constitution.)

In summary, the Hernandez Court has spoken on this legal issue and, as the final authority on the meaning of the NY Constitution, has found that same sex persons have no fundamental due process right (inalienable right) to marriage in the NY Constitution; this means, according to the Hernandez Court, this right never existed in the NY Constitution.  Consequently, the only democratic options (per Hernandez) for the NY Legislature (and Governor) would be to either amend the NY Constitution, pursuant to the NY Constitution, Article XIX, Section 1 or Section 2.  Since the NY Legislature and Governor undertook neither of these foregoing options, the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act, if appealed on the aforementioned grounds, should be found unconstitutional.  However, to date, no Christian legal advocacy group has addressed the foregoing legal arguments in any lawsuit.)

I believe the legal arguments, addressed above, are the strongest �constitutional� arguments against the constitutionality of the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act.  If these new legal causes of action are not raised (and the current lawsuit fails — and it could because the current ongoing lawsuit in the NY Court system, I believe, is based on weaker causes of action that address only constitutional violations of procedural technicalities of the legislative process of the NY Senate, alone, and does not currently include the NY Assembly and Governor as Defendants and does not address the powerful constitutional argument that the NY Legislature and Governor violated the amendment provisions of the NY Constitution) in a new lawsuit against the NY Assembly, Senate, Attorney General, and the Governor, then the NY Legislature�s and Governor�s enactment of the 2011 Marriage Equality Act is considered constitutional (as legislative enactments are presumed valid and constitutional unless
shown otherwise through judicial review).
Please forward the information in this letter to all relevant contacts you might have that would be able to legally address my constitutional concerns as a NY State Citizen and Voter, including members of the NY Assembly (especially to request they repeal the 2011 New York Marriage Equality Act as a facially illegal law), members of the NY Senate (especially to request they repeal the 2011 New York Marriage Equality Act as a facially illegal law), and appropriate legal representatives of various Christian Legal Advocacy Groups, such as the Liberty Counsel, the American Center for Law and Justice, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) (formerly named the Alliance Defense Fund), the American Family Association (New York and National), the New York Family Research Foundation, the Family Research Council, and any other New York and National Family Organizations, that would be of help in constitutionally overturning, in a concerted effort, the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act.
I needs to be noted that the legalization of same sex marriage in New York State, specifically through the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act, will definitely be used by the liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court in an immoral attempt to foist same sex marriage, as a claimed new inalienable right, on the people of the United States.  Hence, it is paramount that the foregoing pro-family organizations work in a concerted effort to first, get the NY Legislature to repeal its facially illegal 2011 Marriage Equality Act and second, simultaneously work on filing, in a concerted effort, a new lawsuit in the NY Court system, addressing the aforementioned new constitutional causes of action.

The purpose of this memorandum is to seek legal redress of the violation of my voting rights under the New York Constitution.  Specifically, the NY Legislature�s and Governor�s unconstitutional enactment of 2011 New York Marriage Equality Act that nullified my right to vote in a state constitutional referendum, pursuant to Article XIX, Section 1 of the NY Constitution, with regard to a legislatively proposed amendment claiming to grant a new fundamental due process right to same sex marriage under the New York Constitution.

For your information, I have chosen the pseudonym — Citizen Christian, in order to protect my identity due to the controversial nature of this topic.

Sincerely,

Citizen Christian
A concerned Christian Citizen of New York State.

About TEANewYork

TEANewYork was established as a resource for many things political, issue-oriented and policy-wise, and for things you can actually do, to actively participate in reforming our severely dysfunctional New York State government. What are you waiting for? Jump on in!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Marriage Equality Act is Illegal

  1. Mike says:

    This is an interesting analysis of the NY marriage issue. But this is not the time to remain anonymous when arguing an important legality.

    In other words, you can either add to or take away from credibility (facts and sincerity). Anonymity creates doubt.

  2. Citizen Christian says:

    Thanks for you reply. I do not believe, however, anonymity should be a bar to credibility or sincerity regarding the statement I wrote above.

    If you look at early American history, some of the most famous political writings of that era were written by anonymous authors. These writings include Thomas Paine’s pamphlet/book, “Common Sense,” signed anonymously as, ‘Written by an Englishman;’ and the “Federalist Papers,” written collaboratively by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, under the pseudonym, ‘Publius.’ These political writings, as history has shown, were considered credible and taken very seriously by the American people during that era in American history. No one ever doubted the veracity of these authors’ messages even though those authors remained anonymous when they originally published their writings.

    Whenever people read any alleged statements, claims or arguments, whether written anonymously or not, those readers always have a duty to verify the veracity of those writings by doing their own independent research. To this effect, in my statement above, I stated; “Please review a copy of the 2011 NY Marriage Equality Act, along with the Hernandez decision in order to verify the accuracy of these claims.” (If you decide to read the Hernandez decision, be on guard about morally objectionable language having been used by the justices in that decision in reference to the immoral lifestyle of same sex persons.)

    Additionally, readers of my statement should review a copy of the NY Constitution with respect to the Articles cited, therefrom, in my statement. It would also be helpful to review the concepts, I discussed in my statement above, regarding the “Balance of Powers” doctrine, “Stare Decisis,” “Judicial Review,” and “Common Law,” in books on American history, American jurisprudence/common law and constitution theory. A basic understanding of these concepts can also be ascertained from articles in encyclopedias and many other general reference sources.

    Sincerely,

    Citizen Christian — A concerned Christian Citizen of New York State.

  3. Thank you for you reply. However, anonymity should not be a bar to credibility.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s