Our Secular Papacy & Gay Rights

by D. J. Connolly



In 1986 the Supreme Court heard the case of Bowers v. Hardwick.   Lawyers representing Michael Hardwick, a practicing homosexual, wanted the Court to declare that Georgia's "sodomy" statute was unconstitutional because, as the Court's majority put it, the statute "violates the fundamental rights of homosexuals."  The Court has long claimed that the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment empowers it to nullify state laws which at least five justices feel violate "fundamental rights."  The claim is completely fraudulent, but that's another story [1].

In Bowers v. Hardwick, a bare 5-4 majority opined that the practice of "homosexual sodomy" was not a "fundamental right."  So Georgia's law was upheld.  The majority opinion, written by Byron White, pointed out that "sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights."  It went on to observe that "in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws.  In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy" [2].

Justice White was too delicate to mention it but, in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified, nine of the original thirteen states provided the death penalty for sodomy.  When they ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866-68, four states still specified the death penalty for sodomy and eleven states provided a maximum penalty of life imprisonment [3].

A four justice minority composed of the usual suspects, Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, opined that the Constitution did indeed protect Mr. Hardwick's private sodomy.  The opinion, written by Harry Blackmun, tended to ramble.  It's most coherent statement said that the sodomy laws were unconstitutional because they were "revolting."

The usual suspects certainly had access to the historical records quoted by Byron White.  They were well aware that "We the People" chose to punish sodomy with death or life in prison when we ratified all the relevant constitutional passages.  It's the usual suspects that were "revolting."  They were "revolting" against the United States Constitution.


In 1996, a federal judge struck down an Alabama law that barred the state's public colleges from using state funds to support gay-student groups.  He ruled that the law was "naked viewpoint discrimination" and therefore violated the First Amendment [4].

Check your copy of the Constitution and see if the First Amendment says anything about "naked viewpoint discrimination."  I didn't think so.  However, the judge was trained in the "science" of the law.  He wouldn't make up a story like that out of whole cloth.  So he must have seen proof that our founders, who adopted the First Amendment, intended it to extend protection against "naked viewpoint discrimination" to gays, right?

Hardly.  Our founders practiced "naked viewpoint discrimination" big time.  They executed folks who practiced the arts that Alabama gay "students" wished to teach other people's children using taxpayer funds.


In Baker v. Vermont (1997), the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that the state's constitution required that the legal benefits of marriage must be extended to "same sex couples."  The Court cited language in Chapter 1, Article 7, which was first adopted in 1777 and last amended in 1786.  Chapter 1, Article 7 reads as follows:

"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community; and that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform or alter government, in such manner as shall be, by that community, judged most conducive to the public weal" [5].

The Vermont Supreme Court is undoubtedly part of the "government."  And the state constitution says nothing about allowing the court to "reform or alter government" according to its own policy preferences.  When Chapter 1, Article 7 was written, Vermont law specified that practices commonly indulged in by same-sex-couples were punishable by death.  So it's rather unlikely that the "people, nation, or community" intended their constitution to require sanctifying those same practices in marriage.

In 1977, the people of Vermont repealed their laws against sodomy.  But they never "judged" homosexual marriage to be "most conducive to the public weal."  A poll taken shortly before the Baker decision found that 54% of the "community" opposed state recognition of same-sex marriages, 35% favored such recognition, and 11% were undecided" [6].

Notwithstanding the fraudulent judicial actions described above, the people of Vermont have made no effort to chastise their dishonest employees.  Evidently, Vermont no longer has a "Republican Form of Government."


In 1997 (Romer v. Evans) the U. S. Supreme Court struck down a provision added by the people of Colorado to their state constitution.  The people didn't want their state and local lawmakers to impose "gay rights" on innocent bystanders.  And they wanted to be sure the message got through.  So they put it in their Constitution.  The U. S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional [7].

The Court said the amendment had no "rational basis" and was "born of animosity toward the persons affected."  Laws against murder, burglary, embezzlement, and rape are clearly "born of animosity towards the persons affected" as were laws enacted by our founders which punished "gay" practices with death or life imprisonment.

Therefore, "animosity" must not have been the Amendment's fatal flaw.  It must have been the lack of a "rational basis."  The people of Colorado had the gall to install their moral values in the law.  Their votes were tainted by religious impulses.

Only the Supreme Court is allowed to write religious values into the law.  The Court views its own religion as the only "rational" one.  And it considers political decisions of "We the People," which reflect the values of any competing religion, to be "revolting" [8].

Our employees, the justices of the U. S. Supreme Court, are doing exactly what the First Amendment was adopted to forbid.  They're imposing the values of a national religion on "We the People" despite our express orders to the contrary [9].


Thomas Jefferson once described the Supreme Court's modus operandi as "advancing its noiseless step like a thief across the field of jurisdiction."  In the summer of 2003 the Court advanced its "noiseless step" just a little bit further; it changed its story about homosexual sodomy.  Our judicial employees announced that it now fell under the protection of the 14th Amendment, just like abortion, flag burning, obscenity, and contraceptives, all things that were illegal when the 14th Amendment was added to our Constitution.

There's no possibility our forefathers would have ratified the 14th Amendment if they had even the slightest suspicion that their judicial employees would eventually distort it into an instrument to trash their basic values.  They probably recognized that values would change, as time went on, and their laws would need to be revised accordingly; but they knew that's what we have legislatures for; and we get to elect the people who sit in legislatures.  There's no possibility our forefathers intended the 14th Amendment to empower our employees on the Supreme Court to revise the Constitution, from time to time, whenever they thought the legislatures were a bit too slow.  The folks who ratified the 14th Amendment viewed the Supreme Court as "a diseased member of the body politic" that was at risk of "amputation" [11].

In the 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, the majority proclaimed that the framers of the 14th Amendment's "due process clause" intended it to protect "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions."  Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose appointment was one of Ronald Reagans more embarrassing mistakes, wrote the majority opinion.  Kennedy didn't offer any proof to support his claim about the "more transcendent dimensions," so he covered up that fact by cited a long list of earlier usurpations in which the Court had "advanced its noiseless step" toward this curious assertion [12].

Kennedy also offered up the following totally irrelevant facts for support:

In 1955, the American Law Institute (an organization of lawyers) promulgated the Model Penal Code and made clear that it did not recommend or provide for "criminal penalties for consensual sexual relations conducted in private."
A committee advising the British Parliament recommended, in 1957, repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. . . . Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later.
(In 1981) the European Court of Human Rights held that the laws proscribing (homosexual) conduct were invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Despite orders to the contrary (in the Constitution: Article I, Section 1; and Article V ) our judicial employees are amending our basic law to conform to the opinion of a lawyers club, the British Parliament, and the European Court of Human Rights.



I once had a neighbor named Gwendolyn who'd heard rumors about some suspicious characters hanging around the street.  She'd never seen them herselves, but the rumors made her feel insecure.  So she decided to get herself a dog.  Gwen wanted one big enough to deter the suspicious characters, so she searched around and found a six-month old, 140 pound, Rotweiler that had been abandoned and was offered up for "adoption" by a local organization of dog lovers.  Gwen named him Rex, and when she got him home she felt a lot more secure.

Rex promptly deposited a rather large pile of doggy poo on Gwendolyn's living room carpet.  She considered giving him a whack with a newspaper, but then thought better of it.  If he was going to be taken seriously as a watch dog she had to keep his self-confidence and sense of independence intact.  So she patiently explained that this was not the role she intended him to play.

As the months went on, Rex continued to do his business on Gwen's living room carpet at least once a day.  He even branched out to the dining room, the kitchen, and the bedrooms.  Cleaning up the doggy poo got very tiresome and her friends refused to come over because her place smelled so bad.  Occasionally she repeated to Rex her admonition about his proper role, but as time went on those occasions became less and less frequent.  Gwen's worries about the suspicious characters in the neighborhood had completely disappeared so she concluded she had gotten what she paid for.  Eventually she came to accept that doing his business on her carpet was part of Rex's role.

The months turned into years.  Some nights she would lay awake for hours pondering her future.  Her friends were long gone, and she heard occasional rumors that the County Health Department planned to condemn her house and tear it down.  Since she was unwilling or unable to get rid of Rex, Gwendolyn's options seemed very limited.

For about two centuries, you've had a Supreme Court which you rely on to defend your Constitution from various suspicious characters you've been told are lurking in the political arena.  You hope that the people you hire to work in the Court will be honest, trustworthy, and free from political and religious bias.  But that hope has rarely been realized.

Since the earliest days of the Republic, your judicial employees have been defecating all over your Constitution.   Their fraudulent opinions helped cause the Civil War and the Great Depression.  For almost a century, the Supreme Court was among America's most stalwart defenders of slavery, racial segregation, and Ku Klux Klan terrorism.   Then it turned around and destroyed our urban public schools in the name of racial justice.  In the name of civil liberties, it caused a massive crime wave and declared "unconstitutional" the moral and cultural values of those who gave us the Constitution [13].

Notwithstanding such "abuses and usurpations," your options seem very, very limited [14].



1.   See A Scam is Born, Evolution of a Scam and Unnatural Selection.

2.   The decision can be found on the Internet at http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5Bgroup+478+u!2Es!2E+186!3A%5D%5E%5Bgroup+citemenu!3A%5D%5E%5Blevel+case+citation!3A%5D%5E%5Bgroup+notes!3A%5D/doc/%7B@1%7D/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only

3.   It's a bit tedious, but one can confirm these statements by reviewing information on the history of sodomy laws provided at the web site, http://www.geocities.com/privacylaws/sensibilities.

4.   The "Naked Viewpoint Discrimination" story was from the Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 9, 1996. The article was written by Patrick Healy.

5.   The text of Baker v. Vermont can be found at the web site, http://www.christianlaw.org/baker_vt.html.  The Vermont Constitution and some relevant history can be found at http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html#Article7.

6.   The poll results quoted were from a September 1996 Mason-Dixon poll of 635 reular voters as reported in the Burlington Free Press.  See http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar8.htm.

7.   Romer v. Evans was discussed in several of the essays collected in the book by Neuhaus et. al. (see the Bibliography).  The text of the decision can be found on the Internet at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZO.html

8.  It's not generally known, but the Supreme Court has long been trashing the First Amendment by operating a federal religion.

9.  It's been well documented that the U. S. Supreme Court is defying the First Amendment by imposing a national religion on the people in the various states.  See The Temple of Karnak, Chapter 11, or read a revised version of the same essay, Edicts of the "Secular Papacy", on the Internet.

10. Jefferson made the statement in a letter to Charles Hammond dated August 18, 1821.

11. See the online essay Unnatural Selection.

12. The text of Lawrence v. Texas can be found on the Internet.  If you'd like to learn more about the Court's practice of "advancing its noiseless step like a thief," check out some of the essays listed at the web site, Trapped in the Temple of Karnak.

13. See the web site, Trapped in the Temple of Karnak.

14. Thomas Jefferson would approve our use of his phrase "abuses and usurpations" in the present context.



To review publication data on sources cited above, check the Bibliography.


This original article contains excerpts from Chapter 12 of The Temple of Karnak: How Rogue Judges Have Been Strangling Your Democracy.  However, it also contains new material that will not be found in the book.

 All Rights Reserved
D. J. Connolly