The elitists’ push to legalize, and forbid disapproval of, homosexual relations is the most telling evidence of their hostility toward America’s way of life. It is also the key, in principle, to their thus far successful strategy to overthrow America’s historically exceptional government of, by, and for the people; and to restore unchallenged rule by and for the advantage of, the most powerful elitist clique.

The latest case in point is the ruling of U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern regarding same-sex marriage, overturning the amendment by which Oklahomans restricted the State’s recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples. Though the decision contained nothing new, both its content and the manner in which it was argued by both sides illustrate the deadly legal chicanery by which the elitist faction means to dissolve the moral, legal and institutional basis for just government, i.e., government aimed at securing the God-endowed unalienable rights of the people.

Nowhere in his judgment does Judge Kern refer to this fundamental purpose of government. This omission is the key to understanding the deadly legalistic deception his decision carries on. So is the fact that he pretends to talk about rights, but ignores the special natural prerogative that gives rise to the institution of marriage.

He pretends to see no rational basis for restricting the legal recognition of marriage to couples that are, in principle, capable of natural procreation. (In principle, means, of course, with respect to their God-endowed nature as human beings, not their incidental circumstances or intentions.) Yet the unalienable right of marriage depends on the special prerogative (natural command or rule of the Creator) of procreation. Members of a same-sex couple cannot humanly procreate with one another in the natural way. So they have no basis on which to claim the right rationally connected with the special prerogative of procreation.

Judge Kern purports to discuss natural procreation, but he omits to discuss its connection with natural right. But he also omits to discuss the fact that the whole people of the United States have a vital interest in the meaning and significance of such actions and activities as human beings are moved by their nature (i.e., the way the Creator made us) to undertake.

But where there is no respect for the authority of the Creator, there is no concept or claim of unalienable right. Where there is no concept or claim of unalienable right, legitimate government is not inherently required to respect it. Where government is not inherently required to respect antecedent, unalienable rights, there is no limit, in rational principle, to the use and abuse of the powers of government.