The Supreme Court’s ruling declaring Gay Marriage to a Constitutional right was premised on the Rawlsian presumption that a couple of different sexes was exactly the same as couples of the same sex, and that any point to the contrary was “irrational animus”.

This chain of (il)logic, then, requires any actual difference be ignored in order to perpetuate the fantasy that there are no biological differences between men and women, particularly when it comes to reproduction. We have already seen the outright denial of objective biological reality with California mandating that if a same-sex couple couldn’t conceive a child naturally between them for a year, than insurance must pay for infertility treatment, despite the obvious fact that two people of the same sex can and will never be able to naturally have a child between them, due to the rather obvious fact that a same-sex couple are physically incapable of conceiving a child naturally between them due to coitus being an exclusively heterosexual act. But because the courts begin with the declaration that there is no difference between same-sex couplings and opposite-sex couplings, the courts must invent impossible fantasies because objective biological reality has been deemed “irrational”.

Marriage had always been about the coupling of man and woman. This is because marriage was about the family as a basic unit of society, and where monogamy was utilized to provide a stable basis for having and raising children in a safe and optimal environment. Much, if not most, family law involves not just the relationship between the two spouses, but were based on the assumption that any child born within their parents’ wedlock was presumed to be legitimate with the mother being the mother and the father being the father. The same logic can not be applied to a same sex couple because it is biologically impossible for both to be the natural parent of the child!

The Supreme Court has already ruled that two women can be listed on a birth certificate, despite the fact that the birth certificate had always included by presumption the natural parent of the child. The entire point of establishing parentage by nature of the birth certificate can not apply to same sex couples. These recordings of facts no serve no purpose in establishing actual biological parentage.

The Arizona Supreme Court has doubled down by declaring that courts must now assume the impossible: To wit, that the legal wife of a woman who has a child is presumed to have paternity.

JUST IN: Arizona Supreme Court rules that marital parentage presumption applies to female same-sex couples: https://t.co/PZrfcE8x66 pic.twitter.com/nZc2R9tehE — Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) September 19, 2017

In order to maintain a pre-determined legal fiction, courts are now required to lie and reject the obvious and objective biological truth that the sexes are different, and that same-sex couplings are innately different from opposite-sex couplings; in other words, courts are required to presume the impossible and eschew all facts counter to the mandated fantasy. All three examples above are plain and obvious points that demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s decision was built upon a lie and that truth is now Constitutionally mere “irrational animus”. Because of this mandated lie, laws and precedents that were based on biological differences between men and women, can not be universally applied to same-sex couples when the later is unequal in the relevant regards from an opposite-sex couple; a fiction that the Arizona Supreme Court follows:

These are a few key paragraphs in today's Arizona Supreme Court decision about the parental presumption and married same-sex couples. pic.twitter.com/t8jM4FE7O3 — Anthony M. Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) September 19, 2017

These laws and precedents came about as a way to deal with the biological reality of men and women having children together. It can not be transposed to same-sex couples. The logic that same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages are the same, and thus the rules developed to the unique situation of one necessarily applies to the impossible situation of the other is nothing less than the subordination of truth and reality to a pure and utter legal fiction.

Different things are different. This is neither “irrational” nor “animus”; ’tis but a recognition of objective biological reality.

If Western Civilization is remembered far into the future, it is this mindset that will be identified as its downfall…

The full decision can be red below:

Arizone Supreme Court No. CV-16-0266-PR by ThePoliticalHat on Scribd



Tweet