Cerca nel blog

satana, 322 bush, 666 kerry Gmos

satana, 322 bush, 666 kerry Gmos .. poiché, il genoma, è proprietà collettiva del genere umano,
1. voi non avete avuto dal genere umano (tutto insieme, nella sua totalità), il diritto di modificare i geni!
2. voi non siete capaci da elementi minerali, di realizzare, in laboratorio, una sola cellula vegetale!
3. le vostre manipolazioni genetiche sono un crimine, ed ogni vostra presunta proprietà sui geni, è giuridicamente: nulla, invalida, abusiva decaduta,
perché, voi non avete il diritto sulla vita, che, Dio soltanto ha, e la cui proprietà appartiene al genere umano, nel suo insieme, con diritto di veto, ad ogni, sua componente, più piccola!

[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ]Case Nos. 13-4178, 14-5003, 14-5006. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DEREK KITCHEN, individually, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacity as Governor of Utah, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Civil Case No. 2:13-CV-00217- RJS MARY BISHOP, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, and SUSAN G. BARTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. SALLY HOWE SMITH, in her official capacity as Court Clerk for Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma,Civil Case No. 04-CV-848-TCK-TLW ________________________ Brief of Amici Curiae United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; National Association of Evangelicals; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. In Support of Defendants-Appellants and Supporting Reversal.. ii.. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the undersigned states that none of the religious organizations that join, this brief issues stock or has a parent corporation that issues stock. s/Alexander Dushku Alexander Dushku. Attorney for Amici Curiae Religious Organizations, February 10, 2014. xi. FED. R. APP. P. 29 (c)(5) STATEMENT. Pursuant to Rule 29 (c)(5), the undersigned states that counsel for the parties have not authored any part of this brief and no party or counsel for any party contributed money to fund any part of the preparation or submission of this brief. This brief is filed with the written consent of all parties. 1. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI The voices of millions of Americans are represented in the broad cross-section of faith communities that join in this brief. Our theological perspectives, though often differing, converge on a critical point: that the traditional, husband-wife definition of marriage is vital to the welfare of children, families, and society. Faith communities like ours are among the essential pillars of this Nation's marriage culture. With our teachings, rituals, traditions, and ministries, we sustain and nourish both individual marriages and a culture that makes enduring marriages possible. We have the deepest interest in strengthening the time-honored institution of husband-wife marriage because of our religious beliefs and also because of the benefits it provides to children, families, and society. Our practical experience in this area is unequaled. In millions of ministry settings each day we see the benefits that married mother-father parenting brings to children. And we deal daily with the devastating effects of out-of-wedlock births, failed marriages, and the general decline of the venerable husband-wife marriage institution. 2. We therefore seek to be heard in the democratic and judicial forums where the fate of that foundational institution will be decided. This brief is submitted out of a shared conviction that the United States Constitution does not prohibit the People of Utah and Oklahoma from deciding—directly or through their elected representatives—to preserve the husband-wife definition of marriage. Statements of interest of the amici are found in the Addendum. INTRODUCTION. A common theme has arisen among advocates for redefining marriage to include same-sex couples: that those who oppose them must be irrational or even bigoted—that they are motivated by "anti-gay animus," whether in the form of unthinking ignorance or actual hostility. Such aspersions, which take various forms, are often cast at people and institutions of faith. The accusation is false and offensive. It is intended to suppress rational dialogue and democratic conversation, to win by insult and intimidation rather than by reason, experience, and fact. In truth, we support the husband-wife definition of marriage because we believe it is right and good for children, families, and society. Our respective faith
[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 3. traditions teach us that truth. But so do reason, long experience, and social fact. We are among the "many religions [that] recognize marriage as having spiritual significance," Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 (1987), indeed as being truly "sacred," Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Our respective religious doctrines hold that marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God as the right and best setting for bearing and raising children. We believe that children, families, society, and our Nationthrive best when husband-wife marriage is upheld and strengthened as a cherished, primary social institution. The family lives of millions of Americans are ordered around and given deep meaning and stability by these beliefs. The value we place on traditional, husband-wife marriage is also influenced by rational judgments about human nature and the needs of individuals and society (especially children) and by our collective experience counseling and serving millions of followers over countless years. For these reasons, too, we are convinced that traditional marriage is indispensable to social welfare and our republican form of government. 4. As our faith communities seek to sustain and transmit the virtues of husband-wife marriage and family life, our teachings and rituals seldom focus on sexual orientation or homosexuality. Our support for the established meaning of marriage arises from an affirmative vision "of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony," Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 44 (1885), and not from animosity toward anyone. In this brief we demonstrate that Utah's and Oklahoma's marriage laws should not be overturned based on the spurious charge that religious organizations support such laws out of animus. Our faith communities bear no ill will toward same-sex couples, but rather have marriage-affirming religious beliefs, that merge with both practical experience and sociological fact to convince us that retaining the husband-wife marriage definition is essential. We further demonstrate that under Supreme Court jurisprudence the notion of "animus" holds limited relevance—and none here. Finally, we refute the suggestion that the Establishment Clause limits the fundamental right of persons and institutions of faith to participate fully in the democratic process. 5. The fact that religious believers support Utah's and Oklahoma's marriage laws by no stretch undermines their constitutional validity. ARGUMENTI. Utah's and Oklahoma's Marriage Amendments Should Not Be Invalidated or Subjected to Closer Judicial Scrutiny Based on False Accusations of Animus. Plaintiffs in the Utah case argued below that State laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman are "based on a desire to harm [same-sex couples], and no legitimate purpose overcomes the State's purpose and effect of disparaging and injuring . . . gay and lesbian citizens." Pls' Mot. Summary Judgment, Kitchen v. Herbert, No. 2:13-cv-00217-RJS, at 19 (D. Utah Oct. 13, 2013). The district court in Oklahoma echoed that sentiment when, after canvassing religious beliefs expressed in support of husband-wife marriage, it concluded that Oklahoma's marriage laws represent "an arbitrary exclusion based upon the majority's disapproval of the defined class." Bishop v. United States ex rel Holder, ___F.Supp.2d ___, 2014 WL 116013, at *32 (N.D.Okla. Jan. 14, 2014). These statements do not represent the reasons we support marriage between a man and a woman. We believe that husband-wife

[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 6. marriage—"an institution more basic in our civilization than any other," Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 303 (1942)—is "the most important relation in life" and "ha[s] more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution," Maynard v. Hill, 125. U.S. 190, 205 (1888). Our faiths also teach love and respect for all people. To suggest that our support for traditional marriage is based on hostility is false. That support predates by centuries the controversy over same-sex marriage and has nothing to do with disapproval of any group. Our support for traditional marriage stands on the affirmative belief that husband-wife marriage complements our human natures as male and female, promotes responsible procreation, and provides the best environment for children. Moreover, reducing religious support for traditional marriage to irrational bias ignores rational arguments for traditional marriage that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Obviously, "reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond meremoral disapproval of an excluded group." Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U.S. 558, 585 (2003) (O'Connor, J., concurring). We discuss many of these reasons below. They are arguments supported by eons of history, right reason, 7. experience, common sense, and social science. They have been accepted by many courts. See, e.g. , Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E. 2d 1 (N.Y.2006). A. We Defend Traditional Marriage Out of Fidelity to Religious Beliefs That Include But Transcend Teachings About Human Sexuality, Not Out of Animus. Let us first dispel the myth that hostility lies at the root of religious support for husband-wife marriage. Jesus expressed no disapproval or hostility when he taught, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?'" Matthew 19:4-5 (RSV). Nor were the ancient Jewish scriptural texts that Jesus referenced based on animosity toward anyone. See. Genesis 1:27, 2:23. (RSV). Faith communities and religious or ganizations have a long history of upholding traditional marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Their support for husband-wife marriage precedes by centuries the very idea of same-sex marriage. Many of this Nation's prominent faith traditions have rich religious narratives that extol the. 8. personal, familial, and social virtue s of traditional marriage while barely mentioning homosexuality. The Catholic Tradition. With a tradition stretching back two millennia, the Catholic Church recognizes marriage as a permanent, faithful, and fruitful covenant be tween a man and a woman that is indispensable to the common good. 1. Marriage has its origin, not in the will of any particular people, religion, or state, but rather, in the nature of the human person, created by God as male and female. When joined in marriage, a man and woman uniquely complement one another spiritually, emotionally, psychologically, and physically. This makes it possible for them to unite in a one-flesh union capable of participating in God's creative action through the generation of new human life. Without this unitive complementarity—and the corresponding capacity for procreation that is unique to such a union—there can be no marriage. 2. These fundamental Catholic teachings about marriage do not mention and have nothing to do with same-sex attraction.

[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 9. The Evangelical Protestant Tradition. For five centuries the various denominational voices of Protestantism have taught marriage from a biblical view focused on uniting a man and woman in a divinely sanctioned companionship for the procreation and rearing of children and the benefit of society. One representative Bible commentary teaches: "Marriage . . . was established by God at creation, when God created the first human beings as 'male and female' (Gen. 1:27) and then said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth' (Gen.1:28). . . . Marriage begins with a commitment before God and other people to be husband and wife for life," with "[s]ome kind of public commitment" being important so that society can "know to treat a couple as married and not as single."
3. Homosexuality is far from central to Evangelical teachings on marriage. The Latter-day Saint (Mormon) Tradition. Marriage is fundamental to the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A formal doctrinal proclamation on marriage declares that "[m]arriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God," that "[c]hildren are entitled to birth with in the bonds of matrimony, and to. 10. be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity," and that "[h]usband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other, and for their children." 4. Strong families based on husband-wife marriage "serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization." 5. Here again, homosexuality is remote from teachings about marriage and family. * * * In sum, our religious understandings of marriage are rooted in beliefs about God's will concerning men, women, children, and society, rather than in the narrower issue of homosexuality. Religious teachings may indeed address homosexual conduct and other departures from the marriage norm, but such issues are a secondary

[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 11. and small part of religious discourse on marriage. Indeed, it is only the recent same-sex marriage movement that has made it more common for religious organizations to include discussions of homosexuality in their teachings on marriage. The suggestion that religious support for husband-wife marriage is rooted in anti-homosexual animus rests on a false portrayal of our beliefs. B. We Defend Traditional Marriage to Protect Vital Interests in the Welfare of Children, Families, and Society. The social benefits of husband-wife marriages and families with a father and mother are critical for the well-being of society and its children. Utah and Oklahoma have compelling interests in maintaining traditional marriage. 1. Procreation and Child-Rearing Ideally Occur Within a Stable Marriage Between a Man and a Woman. Every child has a father and a mother. Procreation within a stable male-female marriage gives a child a uniquely full human context that accounts for both the child's biology and the deeper intentions and commitments of the child's parents. The male-female ideal in marriage and parenting provides children security and other irreplaceable benefits 12. a. Sex between men and women presents a social challenge. "[A]n orderly society requires some mechanism for coping with the fact, that sexual intercourse commonly results in pregnancy and childbirth." Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15, 25-26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Marriage provides "the important legal and normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand and family responsibilities on the other. The partners in a marriage are expected to engage in exclusive sexual relations, with, children the probable result and paternity presumed." Id. at 26 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Husband-wife marriage thus "protects child well-being . . . by increasing the likelihood that the child's own mother and father will stay together in a harmonious household." 6. That is important because, "[c]hildren in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes than do children in intact families headed. 13. by two biological parents." 7. As Massachusetts Justice Robert Cordy observed, while nature forges a link between mother and child, there is "no corresponding process for creating a relationship between father and child. . . . The institution of marriage fills this void by formally binding the husband-father to his wife and child, and imposing on him the responsibilities of fatherhood." Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 996 (Mass. 2003) (Cordy, J., dissenting). b. Both social science and our own experience have taught that, children thrive best when cared for by both of their biological parents. Lofton v. Sec'y of Dep't of Children and Family Servs. , 358 F.3d 804, 819 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[C]hildren benefit from the presence of both a father and mother in the home."). Innate differences between men and women mean that they "are not fungible in relation to child rearing." 8. From those natural differences it follows that "a child benefits from, 14. having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like." Hernandez, 855 N.E. 2d at 7. Social science confirms the common-sense understanding that, "family structure matters for children, and the family structure that, helps children the most is a family he aded by two biolog ical parents in a low-conflict marriage." 9. Indeed, "[a] family headed by two married parents who are the biological mother and father of their children is the optimal arrangement for maintaining a socially stable fertility rate, rearing children, and inculcating in them the [values] required for politically liberal citizenship." 10. The critical role of mothers in child development has never been doubted. But now a large and growing body of research demonstrates, that the contributions of fathers are equally critical to children's formation and well-being. 11. "The burden of social science evidence 9. MOORE, supranote 7, at 1-2. 10. Matthew B. O'Brien, Why Liberal Neutrality Prohibits Same-Sex Marriage: Rawls, Political Liberalism, and the Family, 2012 BRIT. J. AM. LEG. STUD. 411, 414. 11 See, e.g., W. BRADFORD WILCOX ET AL., WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS (2d ed. 2005); Cynthia C. Harper & Sara S. McLanahan, Father Absence 15. supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable." 12. 2. Limiting Marriage to Male-Female Couples Furthers Powerful State Interests. a. Alternative child-rearing arrangements pose significant risks. The late James Q. Wilson detailed the overwhelming evidence that single and, in particular, fatherless parenting significantly increases the likelihood that a child will experience poverty, suicide, mental illness, physical illness, infant mortality, lower educational achievement, juvenile delinquency, adult criminality, unwed teen parenthood, lower life expectancy, and, reduced intimacy with parents. That such social pathologies bear a strong statistical correlation with child-rearing in family structures other than the stable husband-wife marital home with both biological parents is truly sobering. 13 and Youth Incarceration, 14 J. RES. oN ADOLESCENCE 369, 385-86. (2004). 12 DAVID POPENOE, LIFE WITHOUT FATHER: COMPELLING NEW EVIDENCE THAT FATHERHOOD & MARRIAGE ARE INDISPENSABLE FOR THE GOOD OF CHILDREN & SOCIETY 146 (1996). 13. See generally Brief Amici Curiae of James Q. Wilson et al., Legal and Family Scholars In Support of Appellees at 41-43, In re Marriage Cases,
16. The figures Professor Wilson cites are not merely impersonal statistics. Our faith communities are intimately familiar with the personal tragedies associated with unwed parenting and family breakdown. We have seen boys, bereft of their fathers or any proper male role model, acting out in violence, joining gangs, and engaging in other destructive social and sexual behaviors. We have cared for and mourned with victims left in their destructive wake. And we have ministered to those boys in prisons where too many are consigned to live out their ruined lives. We have seen young girls, deprived of the love and affection of a father, engaging in a wide array of self-destructive behaviors. All too often the result is pregnancy and out-of-wedlock birth, thereby cruelly repeating the cycle. The inescapable truth is that only male-female relationships can create children. Children need their mothers and fathers. And society, needs mothers and, fathers to raise their children. That, in a nutshell, is why society needs the institution of male-female marriage, and why Utah and Oklahoma are right to specially protect and support it. 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008) (No. S147999), available at 17. b. In this respect, as in so many others, the law plays an important educational function. "[L]aw is not just an ingenious collection of devices to avoid or adjust disputes and to advance this or that interest, but also a way that society makes sense of things." 14. By reserving marriage for the relation ship between a man and a woman, the law encourages socially optimal behavior through an institution that supports and confirms the People's deep cultural understanding— and the sociological truth—that stable mother-father marital unions are best for children. "If same-sex partnerships were recognized as marriages, however, that ideal would be abolished from our law: no civil institution would any longer reinforce the notion that children need both a mother and father; that, men and women on average bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise; and that boys and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways." 15. A gender-neutral marriage definition unavoidably changes the message and function of marriage by al tering it to serve the interests of 14. MARY ANN GLENDON, ABORTION AND DIVORCE IN WESTERN LAW: AMERICAN, FAILURES, EUROPEAN CHALLENGES 7-8 (1987). 15. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, & Ryan T. Anderson, What is Marriage? , 34 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL, Y 245, 262-63 (2011)

18 adults. 16. That would be a case of those in power (adults) using law to bring about change that is self-serving. "One may see these kinds of social consequences of legal change as good, or as questionable, or as both. But to argue that these kinds of cultural effects of law do not exist, and need not be taken into account when contemplating major changes in family law, is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of intellectual seriousness about the power of law in American society." 17. We reject the charge that the long-established understanding of marriage disrespects persons in same-sex relationships. That, understanding predates by centuries the current debate over same-sex unions. 18. But we do agree that changing the legal definition of 16. Supporters of same-sex marriage typically conceive of marriage primarily as a vehicle for advancing the autonomy interests of adults. See, e.g., Ralph Wedgwood, The Fundamental Argument for Same-Sex Marriage, 7 J.POL. PHIL. 225, 225 (1999) ("The basic rationale for marriage lies in its serving certain legitimate and important interests of married couples."). 17. INSTITUTE FOR AMERICAN VALUES, MARRIAGE AND THE LAW: A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES 26 (2006). 18 See, e.g., JOHN WITTE JR., FROM SACRAMENT TO CONTRACT: MARRIAGE, RELIGION, AND LAW IN THE WESTERN TRADITION 17 (2d ed. 2012) ("The western tradition inherited from ancient Greece and Rome the idea that, marriage is a union of a single man and a single woman who unite for 19. marriage would alter the way society views marriage, making it adult-focused rather than child-focused, just as Plaintiffs suggest. That is, if, the meaning of marriage is changed in concept, the cultural significance attached to marriage will also change in practice. Transforming marriage into a relationship primarily directed at adults and their life choices, we judge, will further deepen the devastating effects we have experienced over the last half-century with the devaluing of marriage as a child-centered institution. For all these reasons, society has the most compelling interest in keeping the focus of marriage where society needs it most: on legally uniting men and women so, that the children they bear will feel secure and have the best chance of being properly nurtured by both parents. This conclusion reflects not only venerable religious beliefs but reason, long experience, and sociological fact. C. We Support Laws Protecting Traditional Marriage to Safeguard the Marriage Institution Against Judicial Redefinition. In the past two decades, a surge of State-by-State lawmaking— most often through State constitutional amendments —has reaffirmed the purposes of mutual love and friendship and mutual procreation and nurture of children.").

666, CIA 187Audiohostem --- tutti gli omicidi, e tutti gli atti di cannibalismo, a cui tu hai partecipato, sull'altare di satana, e tutto il sangue di porco, che, tu potresti bere? non riusciranno mai a strapparti il mio AMORE dal tuo cuore! .. e tu lo sai, io ucciderò, tutti quelli, che, il mio amore, ed il mio perdono, non riuscirà, a conquistare!
io sono UNIUS REI!

[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 20. the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage amendments, like those challenged here, cannot be explained as manifestations of animus toward any citizens but as a safeguard against perceived overreach by State judges. See Kitchen v. Herbert, __ F.Supp.2d ___, 2013 WL 6697874, at *23 (D. Utah Dec. 20, 2013); Bishop, 2014 WL at *23. Support for new laws reaffirming traditional marriage has been motivated by a desire to reaffirm the societal importance of traditional marriage and preemptively protect it against judicial redefinition. Like the national groundswell against assisted suicide, traditional marriage, "[t]hough deeply rooted . [has] in recent years been reexamined and, generally, reaffirmed." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 716(1997). II. Utah's and Oklahoma's Laws Reserving Marriage for a Man and a Woman Are Not Invalid Ex pressions of Animus. We have identified a few of the reasons why we support traditional marriage, none of which is based on hostility or animus. These reasons alone are sufficient to survive this Court's scrutiny. But, lest these and other reasons advanced by the States simply be brushed aside based on allegations of animus, we next address the limited role such allegations play in equal-protection analysis. 21. A. Allegations of "Animus" Are Relevant Only, If a Law Can Be Explained Solely By Animus with No Other Possible Rationale. Judicial inquiry into animus is an exception to the rule that a law will not be declared unconstitutional "on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive." United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 383 (1968); see also Board Ed. Westside Cnty. Schs. (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 249 (1990) ("[W]hat is relevant is the legislative purpose of the statute, not the possibly religious motives of the legislators who enacted the law"). Inquiring into animus when adjudicating an equal protection claim serves the limited purpose of "ensur[ing] that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law." Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996) (emphasis added). The plaintiff must show "that, the decisionmaker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' its adverse effects upon an identifiable group." Personnel Adm'r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979). That a law challenged under the Equal Protection Clause allegedly suggests "'negative attitudes' " or "'fear'" toward a group is not a sufficient basis to strike it down. Board Trustees Univ. Ala. v.

666 satana 187Audiohostem ---> cosa è l'AMORE?

[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 22. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 367 (2001). "Although such biases may often accompany irrational (and therefore unconstitutional) discrimination, their presence alone does not a constitutional violation make." Id. (emphasis added). Only naked animus—"unsubstantiated by factors, which are properly cognizable"—may render legislation unconstitutional. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). B. Neither Windsor Nor Romer Justifies This Court in Construing Utah and Oklahoma Marriage Laws As Expressions of Impermissible Animus. These limits on the animus inquiry characterized the Supreme Court's approach to equal protection analysis in Windsor and Romer. Windsor struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") as a "'discrimination[ ] of an unusual character'" requiring "careful consideration." United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2693 (2013) (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 633). Only after concluding that Congress's definition of marriage was "unusual"—a "federal intrusion" on the States' "historic and essential authority to define the marital relation"—did the Court delve into "the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA" to determine whether the law was "motived by an improperanimus or purpose." Id. at 2692, 2693. Its. 23. purpose, the Court found, was to "impose restrictions and disabilities" on rights granted by those States that, through a deliberative process, had chosen to recognize same-sex marriage.
Id. at 2692. The Court reasoned: DOMA's unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. Id. at 2693 (emphasis added). Windsor does not decide this case because the Utah and Oklahoma laws challenged here fundamentally differ from DOMA. State laws reaffirming the historic definition of marriage cannot remotely be described as classifications of an "unusual character," especially when Windsor, went out of its way to stress that control of the marital relation lies within the "' virtually exclusive province of the States.'" Id. at 2693, 2691 (quoting Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 404 (1975)). Because State laws defining marriage are the norm, there is no warrant for the "careful consideration" applied in Windsor or the inquiry into alleged animus. Id. at 2693. 28. characterize a suspect class and marrying a person of the same sex is not a fundamental right, "[a] century of Supreme Court adjudication under the Equal Protection Clause affirmatively supports the application of the traditional standard of review, which requires only that [State laws defining marriage] be shown to bear some rational relationship to legitimate state purposes." Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 40. Finding animus here, when the challenged classifications are demonstrably not "unusual," would abandon the Supreme Court's established equal protection framework. Third, it would deny Utah's and Oklahoma's marriage laws the deference they are owed under rational basis review, thereby depriving the people of those States of the benefits of federalism—"the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 2364 (2011) (Kennedy, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted). Perhaps their greatest loss would be the capacity to petition State governments to "respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that, control a remote central power." Id. A 29. mistaken finding of animus would defeat, in short, the efforts of "ordinary citizens seeking to maintain a degree of control, a sense of community, in an increasingly interrelated and complex world." College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 703 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting). In the marriage context, this disenfranchisement would fall especially hard on faith communities, which by religious mission and tradition shoulder much of the burden of sustaining a vibrant marriage culture and supporting families and in dividuals when marriages fail. Despite that vital role, their strongly held values would no longer be reflected in the law—indeed, their values would be declared illegitimate. 19 III. Utah's and Oklahoma's Marriage Amendments Are Not Invalid Under the Establishment Clause Because They Were Informed by Religious and Moral Viewpoints. Provisions protecting traditional marriage typically receive support from religious organizations and people of faith. Some suggest 19. Striking down State marriage laws for animus also would be unjustly one-sided. Laws protecting traditional marriage no more imply animus toward same-sex couples than laws redefining marriage imply animus toward people of faith.

187AudioHostem 666 Gmos aliens abductions, agenda, NWO, CIA, Nsa, cannibal, [] mi dispiace, di avere scoperto, la tua vera identità, soltanto, dopo averti fatto cacciare, come direttore, da youtube.. ma, tu lo sai, che, io ti voglio bene.. e se, ti annunci? io sarei felice di ospitarti a casa mia, qualche ora, con la tua compagna, o anche a solo! se, poi, non hai il coraggio di confessarti da un prete? poi, io ti posso assolvere io, da tutti i tuoi peccati, e crimini, anche, se tu preferisci! .. però confessarsi da un prete sarebbe la cosa migliore.. ma, tu lo sai, io NON parlo inglese, quindi, tu dovrai procurarti un traduttore, per parlare con me! .. e poi, con me, tu devi avere pazienza, perché, io sono un poco lento nella comprensione, infatti, io sono un poco stupido!

[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 30. this implicates the Establishment Clause. But religious motivations are not constitutionally disqualifying because legislation is not judged by the private motivations of its supporters. Mergens, 496 U.S. at 249 ("[W]hat is relevant is the legislative purpose of the statute, not the possibly religious motives of the legislators who enacted the law."). The constitutional separation of church and State does not require the removal of religious values from public life or democratic deliberations. Religion has been a key motivating factor for the most formative political movements in our Nation's history. From the founding of our Nation, 20. to the abolition of slavery, 21. the fight for women's suffrage, 22. 20. "[T]he Founding Fathers believed de votedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him." School Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212 (1963), Indeed, "[t]he men of 1776 believed that the good state would rise on the rock of private and public morality, that morality was in the case of most men and all states the product of religion, and that the earthly mission of religion was to set men free. It was no mere pose when they justified resistance to oppression as obedience to God and an appeal to heaven." CLINTON ROSSITER, SEEDTIME OF THE REPUBLIC: THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICAN TRADITION OF POLITICAL LIBERTY 59 (1953). Accordingly, they amended the Constitution to secure religious liberty as America's first freedom. See, U.S. CONST. amend. 1. 21. Lincoln's presidential speeches were "suffused with" religious references that inspired and sustaine d the terrible fight to end slavery. WILLIAM LEE MILLER, LINCOLN' SVIRTUES. 50 (2002). 31. and the civil rights movement, 23. American discourse, politics, and law have been enriched by and suffused with religious faith. Perhaps this is why in his campaign for President, Barack Obama recognized that "to say that men and women should not in ject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity." 24. No principle of constitutional law, under the Establishment, Clause or otherwise, prevents vote rs from supporting a constitutional amendment—or prohibits State legislators from enacting a law—reflecting moral judgments about, what is best for society. See Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 319-20 (1980) ("That the Judaeo-Chrstian religions oppose stealing does not mean that a State or the Federal Government may not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, enact 22. Susan B. Anthony argued that, women's suffrage would bring moral and religious issues "into the political arena" because such issues were of special importance to women. Letter from Susan B. Anthony to Dr.George E. Vincent (Aug. 1904), in 3 I DAHUSTED HARPER, LIFE AND WORKS OF SUSAN B. ANTHONY, at 1294 (1908). 23. Martin Luther King's best-known
speeches and writings relied on biblical language and imagery. See, e.g., Martin Luther King, I Have a Dream (1963), in I HAVE ADREAM: WRITINGS AND SPEECHES THAT CHANGED THE WORLD, at 105-06 (James Melvin Washington ed., 1992). 24. Barack Obama, Call to Renewal Keynote Address (June 28, 2006), available at

187AudioHostem 666 aliens abductions agenda, NWO CIA, Nsa, cannibal, [ ] my son, tu sei andato da un prete cattolico a confessarti? perché, il fatto che, tu sei giovane? questo non vuol dire, che, la tua vita potrebbe essere lunga!

[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 32. laws prohibiting larceny."); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 422. (1961) (holding that a Sunday-closing law does not violate the Establishment Clause merely because it "happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions"). To the contrary, most State and congressional enactments reflect moral judgments, meaning judgments about what is right and best for society. From criminal laws, to business and labor regulations, environmental legislation, military spending, and universal health care—the law and public policy are constantly based on notions of morality. See, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 257 (1964) (collecting decisions upholding federal laws where "Congress was legislating against moral wrongs"). If all laws representing moral choices were to be invalidated under the Establishment Clause, it would be the end of representative government as we know it, for "[c]on flicting claims of morality . . . are raised by opponents and proponents of almost every [legislative] measure." Dandridge v. Williams. , 397 U.S. 471, 487 (1970). Thus, it is axiomatic that no law is invalid when it "merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all. 33. religions." McGowan, 366 U.S. at 442; see also Harris, 448 U.S. at 319. The Civil Rights Act of 1964—whose anniversary we celebrate this year—was no less valid because "Congress was also dealing with what, it considered a moral problem." Heart of Atlanta Motel, 379 U.S. at 257. And courts "surely would not strike down a law providing money to feed the hungry or shelter the homeless if it could be demonstrated, that, but for the religious beliefs of the legislators, the funds would not have been approved." Edwards v. Aguillard , 482 U.S. 578, 615 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting) . More fundamentally, declaring a law void because it adheres to traditional moral beliefs is contrary to the fundamental constitutional right of religious citizens to participate fully in the process of self-government as believers. "[The Constitution] does not license government to treat religion and those, who teach or practice it . . . as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique disabilities." Mergens, 496 U.S. at 248; see also In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 385 (1970) (Black, J., dissenting) (describing the "right of each man to participate in the self-government of his society" as "perhaps the most fundamental liberty of our people"). "[N]o less than members.
[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! poligamia e pedofilia islamica ] turtleturbo1025 said: Sharia law can go fuck off!! Try to deceive me? You can fuck off to and die in fiery torment yourself, I'm all about helping people innocent..
my JHWH, tu he dici, loro hanno capito che, contro di me, non devono più scommettere nulla?
. 34, any other group, [religious Americ ans must] enjoy the full measure of protection afforded speech, association, and political activity generally." McDaniel v. Paty , 435 U.S. 618, 641 (1978) (Brennan, J., concurring in the judgment). Voters cannot—and should not—be required to check
their religious beliefs at the door when they enter the polls. See id. ("[G]overnment may not . . . fence out from political participation those . . . whom it regards as over-involved in religion."). 25, It follows that subjecting marriage laws and amendments to unusual constitutional scrutiny because they coincide with traditional morality would also raise grave First Amendment concerns. Increased scrutiny could be regarded as a "religious gerrymander," indirectly, "regulat[ing] . . . [political participation] because it is undertaken for religious reasons." Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 532 (1993) (citations omitted). Though differing religious groups may align on differe nt sides of the marriage issue, 25. Nullifying Utah's and Oklahoma's marriage laws because they reflect the views of some religious voters would render meaningless the
"profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)
35. judges cannot pronounce the religious beliefs of one set of voters, progressive and another ignorant or hateful. "The Establishment Clause . . . may not be used as a sword to justify repression of religion or its adherents from any aspect of public life." McDaniel, 435 U.S. at 640-41 (Brennan, J., concurring in the judgment) (citations omitted). Citizens of faith are entitled to rely on their religious beliefs in debating and making decisions about important matters of public policy. And Utah's and Oklahoma's marriage laws are entitled to be judged on their merits based on settled rules of law—not on a more demanding standard born of suspicion toward religion, religious believers, or their values. CONCLUSION. Marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, remains a vital and foundational institution of civil society. The government's interests in continuing to encourage and support marriage are not merely legitimate but compelling. No other institution joins together two persons with the natural ability to create children for the purpose of maximizing the welfare of such children. No other institution strives to ensure that, children have the opportunity of [[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 36. feeling a sense of security and being raised in a stable household by the mother and father who conceived them. Undermining the husband-wife marital institution by redefining it to include same-sex couples will, in the long term, harm vital child-welfare interests that only the husband-wife definition can secure. The result will be more mothers and fathers concluding that the highest end of marriage is not the welfare of their children but the advancement of their own life choices. We know, from personal experience over numerous decades of ministering to families and children, that more focus on satisfying adult needs will not benefit vulnerable children. The societal il
ls caused by the deterioration of husband-wife marriage will only be aggravated if the State cannot reserve to marriage its historic and socially vital meaning.
DATED this 10th day of February, 2014.

[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 39
CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION. I hereby certify that:(1)all required privacy redactions, have been made per 10th Cir. R. 25.5; (2) if required to file additional hard copies, the ECF submission is an exact copy of those documents; (3) the digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program, Sophos, version 10.3 and updated as of February 10, 2014 and according to the
program are free of viruses. KIRTON |MCCONKIE By:s/Alexander Dushku
Alexander Dushku R. Shawn Gunnarson, Justin W Starr 1800 Eagle Gate Tower
60 E. South Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: (801)328-3600
Facsimile: (801)321-4893
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Religious Organizations

[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 40. ADDENDUM—STATEMENTS OF INTEREST OF THE AMICI The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
("USCCB" or "Conference") is a nonprofit corporation, the members of which are the
Catholic Bishops in the United States. The USCCB advocates and promotes the pastoral teaching of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in such diverse areas of the nation's life as the free expression of ideas, fair employment and equal opportunity for the underprivileged, protection of the rights of parents and children, the sanctity of life, and the nature of marriage. Values of particular importance to the Conference include the promotion and defense of marriage, the protection of the First Amendment rights of religious organizations and their adherents, and, the proper development of the nation's jurisprudence on these issues. The National Association of Evangelicals. ("NAE") is the largest network of evangelical churches, denominations, colleges, and, independent ministries in the United States. It serves 41 member denominations, as well as numerous evangelical associations, missions, nonprofits, colleges, seminaries, and independent churches. NAE serves as the collective voice of evangelical churches, as well as other church-related and independent religious ministries.
[ in difesa della legge naturale, contro, tutte le perversioni sessuali! ] 41. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ("LDS Church"). is a Christian denomination with over 14 million members worldwide. Marriage and the family are central to the LDS Church and its members. The LDS Church teaches that marriage between a man and, a woman is ordained of God, that the traditional family is the foundation of society, and that marriage and family supply the crucial relationships through which parents and children acquire private and public virtue. Out of support for these fundamental beliefs, the LDS Church appears in this case to defend the traditional, husband-wife
definition of marriage. The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) is the moral concerns and public policy entity of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the nation's largest Protestant denomination, with over 46,000 churches and 16 million members. The ERLC is charged by the SBC with addressing public policy affecting such issues as marriage and family, the sanctity of human life, ethics, and religious liberty. Marriage is a crucial social institution. As such, we seek to strengthen and protect it for the benefit of all. 42. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. is the second largest, Lutheran denomination in North America, with approximately 6,150. member congregations which, in turn, have approximately 2.4 million, baptized members. The Synod believes that marriage is a sacred union of one man and one woman, Genesis, 2:24-25, and that God gave marriage as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His bride the Church, Ephesians 5:32. As a Christian body in this country, the Synod believes it has the duty and responsibility to speak publicly in support of traditional marriage and to protect marriage as a divinely. created relationship between one man and one woman.

GUERRA AL MES. Il volantino. Pubblicato 27 giugno 2012 - 18.35 - Da Claudio Messora
di Lidia Undiemi. Rischiamo di finire come la Grecia, dove la Troika, in cambio di aiuti finanziari, ha posto tutta una serie di politiche di austerità, di taglio dei dipendenti, di riduzione delle pensioni che non sono aiuti, ma un mero scambio di natura finanziaria. Cioè: danno del denaro a uno Stato, il quale in cambio cede loro la sovranità, e poi saranno loro ad imporre al popolo tutta una serie di condizioni insopportabili, soprattutto per le fasce più deboli. Bene, adesso anche gli italiani rischiano di ritrovarsi come i greci. Infatti un passaggio fondamentale del trattato MES dice espressamente che uno Stato che intenda chiedere un prestito al cosiddetto fondo salva stati (il MES, appunto) deve sottostare a condizioni molto rigorose. Non abbiamo sentito né un parlamentare nazionale né uno comunitario riferire al popolo italiano i dettagli di questo trattato, nonostante già di per sé preveda un vincolo di 125 miliardi di euro che influenzerà giocoforza le nuove generazioni nonché le politiche di ogni futuro governo. Nessuno, nessuno ha voluto chiedere alle istituzioni competenti dei chiarimenti, per poi riferire ai cittadini. Per tale ragione abbiamo lavorato tanto, in rete. Personalmente ho lanciato una iniziativa, tesa soprattutto a sensibilizzare l'opinione pubblica. Per fortuna la società civile ha mostrato grande impegno e lucidità, consentendo alla denuncia di una singola studiosa di diventare una battaglia nazionale. Adesso è arrivato il momento, anche per il singolo cittadino, di partecipare attivamente contro questo tipo di politica europea che mira, sostanzialmente, a togliere la sovranità politica alle singole nazioni. Per tali ragioni ho realizzato un volantino, che contiene le indicazioni di base per riuscire a far comprendere l'argomento, o quanto meno per sensibilizzare i singoli cittadini. Sul retro del volantino troverete una serie di domande da fare alla classe politica italiana, tra cui ad esempio: "In cosa si tradurranno le condizioni rigorose contenute nel trattato, per il popolo italiano?". Questo è uno dei punti fondamentali da sciogliere. E visto ciò che è accaduto in Grecia, dubito che si tratti di condizioni migliorative per la collettività. Fra le altre domande, proprio perché siamo nel periodo intermedio tra la strage di Capaci e quella di via D'Amelio, voglio fare una domanda a tutti i "professionisti dell'Antimafia", senza alcuna polemica (ndr: non mi riferisco alla magistratura per la quale nutro grandissimo rispetto). Poiché il MES farà ricorso al mercato finanziario esterno, per potere soddisfare le richieste di prestito, in che modo gli stati saranno protetti dal rischio di ingerenza dei capitali sporchi nelle operazioni finanziarie? Il dubbio sorge in relazione al fatto che, in un periodo di grave crisi in cui lo Stato è indebolito dal punto di vista economico-finanziario – ma direi anche istituzionale -, nel momento in cui lo Stato debitore si rivolge a questa organizzazione e questa, tra immunità e inviolabilità dei documenti, si pone in qualche modo da intermediario nei confronti dei finanziatori esterni, in operazioni finanziarie di carattere internazionale enormi e in uno stato di diritto sempre meno funzionante, chi ci garantisce che di fatto non si avrà una svendita degli stati nei confronti di organizzazioni finanziarie esterne, facenti riferimento ad organizzazioni criminali o meno? Ma in ogni caso, prima di vincolare l'attuale Governo, le future legislazioni e le future generazioni a pagare 125 miliardi di euro e a condividere le decisioni di politica interna con questa organizzazione finanziaria, perché nessuno vuole discuterne, nessuno dei parlamentari dei partiti di destra, di sinistra, grandi e piccoli, ipocriti e meno ipocriti? Su questi aspetti sono tutti d'accordo! Io mi sento priva di rappresentanza in Italia e credo che in questo Paese attualmente non ci sia una opposizione al Governo delle banche. L'articolo 15 del trattato MES prevede che il consiglio dei governatori dell'Organizzazione può decidere – attenzione a questo passaggio – di concedere assistenza finanziaria a un membro del MES ricorrendo a prestiti con l'obiettivo specifico di ricapitalizzare le istituzioni finanziarie dello stesso membro. Prestiti provenienti da organizzazioni esterne o private. Noi questo non lo dobbiamo, non possiamo permettercelo. Non abbiamo tanto tempo, perché siamo stati indifferenti troppo a lungo. Viviamo in un sistema sociale e politico marcio. Basta pensare alle dichiarazioni del presidente della Corte dei Conti, in occasione dell'inaugurazione dell'anno giudiziario 2011, in cui è stato messo in evidenza come le privatizzazioni e le esternalizzazioni si sono ridotte a un mezzo per la gestione clientelare del potere politico amministrativo. Cioè la nostra pubblica amministrazione non è completamente rivolta verso il bene comune, bensì verso interessi ed affari privati. Pensate a tutti gli scandali politici che stanno uscendo, da destra a sinistra. Anche il Fondo Monetario Internazionale, che si ingerisce mediante Monti delle decisioni di politica interna, volendo ancora una maggiore flessibilizzazione del mercato del lavoro (quando sappiamo che questo strumento ha fallito ormai da diversi anni), ora spinge per le privatizzazioni. Adesso la soluzione sarebbe dunque questa, per porre rimedio alla grande crisi? La svendita del patrimonio pubblico? Qui siamo alla follia! Uno Stato senza patrimonio pubblico non è uno Stato. Non può garantire i propri cittadini, non può tutelarli. Vogliono la nostra identità! I trattati ESM e Fiscal Compact necessitano dell'autorizzazione del Parlamento. Cioè è necessaria l'autorizzazione alla ratifica. Dunque si invertono completamente i rapporti tra il Governo e i parlamentari, perché da un lato abbiamo questa Europa, rappresentata da Mario Monti, che vuole a tutti i costi ulteriore cessione di sovranità da parte dello Stato italiano (in questo caso mediante questi due trattati), mentre dall'altro i nostri parlamentari hanno un potere enorme, in quanto saranno loro a decidere se concedere o meno l'autorizzazione alla ratifica. Ora, immaginate per un attimo questo potere spropositato nelle mani di un Parlamento che si è dimostrato di fatto incapace di portare l'Italia verso uno sviluppo virtuoso, con i parlamentari appartenenti a partiti politici soggetti a continui scandali. Ma davvero voi volete far sì che a decidere il futuro delle nuove generazioni siano questi soggetti, che siano cioè loro a ratificare trattati di una importanza gigantesca per la sopravvivenza del nostro stato di diritto? E' possibile accettare tutto questo? E sono tutti d'accordo! Una notizia importantissima, arrivata in questi giorni dalla Germania, è che la Corte tedesca ha fatto slittare la ratifica dei trattati poiché i verdi si sono opposti. L'hanno fatto perché non c'era stato un adeguato dibattito e approfondimento in Parlamento. Il secondo portavoce del partito di sinistra, Linke, ha annunciato che se il Parlamento concederà l'autorizzazione alla ratifica sottoporrà alla valutazione della Corte Costituzionale una serie di profili di illegittimità. Al di là di come andrà a finire, quantomeno in Germania un minimo di dibattito politico, un minimo di opposizione contro il Governo delle banche, c'è! Noi qui invece abbiamo questi giornali, questi mezzi di informazione che tengono in sala di rianimazione dei partiti che sono morti, ma che purtroppo oggi hanno ancora un potere enorme. E i primi a gridare contro l'informazione di regime sono proprio quelli che oggi ne stanno approfittando. Non dimenticatelo in futuro. Abbiate memoria di ciò che sta accadendo. Quindi vi invito a divulgare il più possibile il volantino che potete trovare su Soprattutto ora che è periodo di elezioni e tutti questi politici silenti se ne andranno in giro a fare campagna elettorale per se stessi, per i propri amici o per i propri candidati. Ponete loro le domande contenute nel volantino. Soprattutto diffondetelo presso i vostri concittadini, i vostri amici, i vostri parenti, i vostri conoscenti, in qualsiasi occasione anche durante le vacanze. Parlate a tutti del MES. E mi riferisco anche alla società civile, ai movimenti, alle associazioni: dovete cogliere tutte le occasioni, dovete mettervi in prima fila per difendere il nostro Stato rispetto a queste scellerate cessioni di sovranità, dove il popolo è stato completamente tagliato fuori. Attenzione, non per colpa di Monti, ma per colpa dei nostri parlamentari nazionali ed europei che non stanno dicendo assolutamente nulla sull'argomento. Per scaricare il volantino: