The ACLU Advances Their Cause Though Lies, Misunderstandings, And Judicial Fiat

The ACLU is a champion of what they call lifestyle discrimination. Lifestyle discrimination is a term made up by them or their allies to make laws that were passed to insure justice or protect the general welfare look wrong. They then use the equal protection clause of the Constitution to defend these cases which shows the power of euphemisms. Drug use and homosexuality are both lifestyle choices according to them. I wonder what they think of incest and bigamy? Here is a cite from a question and answer report about Deane and Polyak v. Conaway

Hasn't marriage been traditionally defined as relationship between a man and a
woman?

At various times in the past, marriage has meant something different than what it means today: Marriage used to be a forced union of two individuals for economic or political gain, but now it is a free choice of two people who love each other. Women who married used to lose all ability to act for themselves, instead becoming the property of their husbands, while now wives are not property but can act independently. Marriage used to be restricted along racial and religious lines, while now people of different races and religions are free to marry. Marriage used to be a permanent bond from which there was no escape, but now we allow divorce. In short, what has remained constant about marriage is that it is about commitment, love, sharing, and compromise. People who make that commitment to each other should not be denied the protections of marriage just because they are of the same sex

Now I want you to look at the evidence from the Commentaries on the Laws of England which were required reading for lawyers in the colonies. Here is an excerpt from University of Groningen in the Netherlands that testifies of the validity of Willam Blackstone 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' to display what the writers of the Constitution held to be true

Blackstone played an influential part in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. In his 1985 book Novus Ordo Seclorum Forrest McDonald called Blackstone's contributions "pervasive." The Commentaries were cited if not by name than by inference many times during the constitutional convention. The most direct and lasting force of his ideas concerned ex post facto laws, rules of laws designed to retrospectively regulate conduct. During the debates James Madison questioned whether the provision banning ex post facto laws in the draft of the Constitution would apply to civil cases. The next day delegate John Dickinson announced that he had consulted his Blackstone and found that the illegitimacy of ex post facto laws applied only in criminal cases. The matter was dropped, and Blackstone's edict remains in force today.

According to Blackstone women were not property but were the less influential of two incorporated elements such as AT&T merging with Cingular under the AT&T name. In other words the two become one rendering one company legally defunct while merged and the other takes on it debts and obligations.

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law : that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband : under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing ; and is therefore called in our law-french a feme-covert ; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord ; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture.

Never in United States history has a marriage been a forced union as can be seen in Blackstone’s writings and there is no law mandating that it be between two people whom love though marriage vows might well include love as a duty as the husband was instructed to love his wife in the bible.

FIRST, they must be willing to contract. “Consensus, non concubitus, facit nuptias,” is the maxim of the civil law in this case : and it is adopted by the common lawyers , who indeed have borrowed (especially in ancient times) almost all their notions of the legitimacy of marriage from the canon and civil laws.

As for race I see no evidence that it was a consideration in Blackstone’s Book 1 Chapter 15 “On Husband and Wife” though some states did put such limits on marriage. The several states I know of were Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, and Wyoming. All were Anti-black laws of which there were many.

In conclusion you can see that the ACLU is either deliberately or incompedently misinformed about the history of marriage in the United States. In point of fact the United States has always regarded marriage as a social contract between a man and a woman. Their have been changes in the regulation of that contract through the democratic legislative process when the majority felt the need. What the ACLU is proposing is a radical new ideal who’s time does not seem to have come. since they have been unable to pass it by the legislative process. They have now given up on the rule of law and instead seek an unlawful judicial fiat of which the case of Deane and Polyak v. Conaway is one attempt.