Which came first? The crisis of marriage through divorce or the crisis in marriage through governmental regulation and licensing…. Comparing Charles Stanley Thorne’s December 2005 Motion with Mine from April of earlier this year 2012…

Dear Kathy:
          So which came first?  The crisis of marriage through divorce or the crisis in marriage through governmental regulation and licensing…. I want to compare Charles Stanley Thorne’s & Larry Klayman’s December 2005 Motion with what I formulated and you submitted in April of this year: 061205MntoDismiss[1]-JudyEdit 04-13-2012 KAGL Motion to Stay IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
          You have a Ph.D. in psychology.  I have a Ph.D. in anthropology.  Maybe that’s the difference in where we would start analyzing the marital relationship: you are looking (as a psychologist) at the trauma that comes in the end, rather than the social milieu in which a healthy (and stable) relationship might best evolve at the beginning.
         The late great Claude Levi-Strauss was famous for turning around the Marxist presumption and theorem that “the mode of production defines the infrastructure and determines the superstructure” upside down into “the mode of reproduction controls all aspect of social structure, material and ideational.”
          In reviewing what you have here, in Charles Stanley Thorne’s December 2005 Motion, it seems so strange to me that you would not have seen that it is allowing governmental interference with marriage and any aspect of the family relationship itself, not government regulation of divorce, that is at the heart of the problem in the breakdown of the family today.
          The Constitution, First Amendment, Fourth & Fifth Amendments, Seventh, Ninth & Tenth Amendments all guarantee the right to create and enforce private social and economic relations free from governmental interference.
        The Constitution says absolutely nothing about the agreements you make with the government, and buying a state marriage license is indisputably a contract with the government: YOU AGREED TO ALL THE GOVERNMENT’S RULES, just as you did when you signed your application for a Driver’s License, a license to practice psychology, and just as everyone does who applies to practice law.
            The key argument in the old Larry Klayman-Stanley Charles Thorne motion started out with:
           “And there is no doubt that multiple aspects of the intact family life of Wife and Child have been recognized by the Supreme Court of United States as fundamental or basic civil rights.  Throughout the modern era, the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently emphasized the importance of the family and repeatedly described the rights of citizens in marriage, parenting, and family rights as “fundamental” or “basic civil rights.”
               “The rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’… ‘basic civil rights of man,’” (citations omitted.)  Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 447 (1990).
               “[T]he liberty…to direct the upbringing and education of children, …are among ‘the basic civil rights of man.’” Thornburgh v. American Coll. of Obst. & Gyn., 476 U.S. 747, 773 (1986) (Mr. Justice Stevens, concurring).
               “[O]ne of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ is the right to marry and procreate.” (citations omitted)  Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 463 (1985).
               “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival”… “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress”… (citations omitted).  Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383, 384 (1978).
               The “rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’… ‘basic civil rights of man,’”.  Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 771 (1975).
               “[T]here is a right ‘to be free from unwarranted… intrusion… affecting… the decision whether to bear or beget a child.’…  [M]aternity leave rules directly affect ‘one of the basic civil rights of man.’” (citations omitted.)  Cleveland Board of Education v. Lafleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-640 (1974).
               “The rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed essential … basic civil rights of man… far more precious … than property rights…” Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972).
               “[T]he right ‘to marry, establish a home and bring up children,’… and ‘the liberty to direct the upbringing and education of children,’… are among ‘the basic civil rights of man.’” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 503 (1965)(Mr. Justice White, concurring.)
               “The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children.  This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972).
               “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents. … The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, … the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment …” (citations omitted).  Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972).

From these and other cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has articulated a long, but not exhaustive, list of parental rights.  “The liberty interest at issue… care, custody, and control of their children… establish a home and bring up children… control the education… direct the upbringing and education… nurture him and direct his destiny… prepare him for additional obligations… custody, care, and nurture… companionship, care, custody, and management… [I]t cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”  Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66, (2000).

        The political problem is this: people want to have their cakes and eat them too.  They want free dating, free love, free sex, and to marry ONLY for love, on the one hand, and the OLD system of marriage by contract interferes with that.
        You see, if women know in advance (“ex-ante”) that their security comes from their social relations rather than from their political dependency on the government, they simply will not engage in free sex before marriage (or not nearly so much) in circumstances such as existed 100 years ago in this country when virginity itself was once and could again be a “commodity” that a woman can offer in exchange for a contractual promise of support, along with her fertility and child-rearing capacity.
        And if women jealously guard and treasure their virginity and fertility as a “security” for their future, then the marriage contract is a “secured transaction” and has to involve a lot more in the way of substantive promises enforceable or secured by property on the part of the man.  And parents would be much more interested in the economic relations of their children’s marital arrangements because THEIR security in turn would potentially and really depend on such relations.  It is the WELFARE STATE that has broken all these ties of design and individual interdependence.
         This is the most fundamental of social contracts which Marxist-feminists do not like or want to admit.  I was born in 1960 and as a teenager I certainly enjoyed my share (some would say quite a bit more than my share) of the benefits of the “sexual revolution”.  And then, as has happened to so many men of my own and adjoining generations, the moral but entirely logical and practical consequences of this lifestyle came around to bite me in the posterior parts.  You haven’t talked to me in detail about your premarital life but I definitely get the impression that you and I belong to the same generation in every sense.
         My wife Elena turned from me to the “death to all organic social relations” Marxist-trained social-workers, counsellors, Lawyer-Judges and the Socialist State, of which Brooklyn-born Hungarian-speaking CIA Operative Edward Barna Kurjack was an integral part, and thus much more “reliable” than me as a source of support and advice.
         But if you look at the Supreme Court opinion excerpts and passages you (Messers Thorne & Klayman) quoted here below—none of which was strung together in any kind of a coherent argument so far as I can tell—IT IS ALL ABOUT MARRIAGE and CHILDBEARING-CHILDREARING needing to be free from state regulation, not about divorce needing to more heavily regulated.
          These people really made an abysmal argument, and the Motion to Dismiss was a less advantageous format because “Motions to Dismiss” do not require evidence—they are all legal argument—and there was no request for a hearing or proffer of evidence.  Compare it with what we wrote in April—
         “Nor has Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson ever been afforded the right to amend her pleadings in accordance with her constitutional objections and challenges to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, Respondent here and now further requests that this Court acknowledge, affirm, and enforce her right under Article I, §§1, 2, 3, but especially §5 (Right to Instruct Representatives and to Petition for Redress of Grievances), §9 (Due Process of Law) and §21 (the “Open Courts” provision) of the Florida Constitution to amend her pleadings, conduct discovery (Art. I, §24), file pre-trial (and, unlike under Judge Oftedal, have a full and fair hearing on all) motions (including but not limited to Constitutional questions of both substance and procedure[1]), and otherwise to prepare try her constitutional and jurisdictional challenges related to the current Florida Statutory Scheme for the Dissolution of Marriage.  Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson submits that seven years is too long already, and that she should no longer have to wait to challenge and deny the power of the State of Florida so to intrude upon her fundamental rights as to design and enforce upon her a Family Law Jurisdiction and application of judicial process without consent to deny her (1) right to petition, (2) right to privately contract, (3) right to due process of law, (4) right to a trial-by-jury, (5) rights and powers reserved to her as one of the American people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
       “Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has already collected statistical and documentary evidence which she would have plead and presented by and through expert witnesses and testimony (long ago) to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, had she been allowed to do so by Judge Richard L. Oftedal, which shows that Florida Courts automatically grant 100% petitions for divorce without regard to any principal or standard other than that to allege that a marriage is irretrievably broken is taken as sufficient proof of the same as a matter of both fact and law.
         “Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson would also have argued that such a system was enacted by the Florida Legislature without legitimate or even colorable constitutional authority, then enforced by the State Judges and “officers of the Court,” and applied to her in defiance of all constitutional and statutory law, and in violation of her rights guaranteed under the Federal and Florida Constitutions to rights to due process, equal protection, and freedom from both state impairment of the obligations of contract and takings of liberty and process in violation of the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
        “Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson would further have pled and proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence, or even by clear and convincing evidence had she been allowed discovery and a trial-by-jury, that the state statutory scheme by which Florida marriages are licensed is itself unconstitutional.
     “Respondent would further have pled and proved that these unconstitutionally authorized (statutory) dissolution proceedings for unconstitutionally licensed marriage unconstitutionally creates an institutional double-nullity (a wrongfully dissolved marriage, which marriage offended the First Amendment’s prohibition against establishment of religious sacraments, such as the sacrament of marriage, ab initio).
      “The institutional (and unconstitutional, strictly extra-constitutional and statutory) double-nullity of State Created and State Dissolved Marriage effects only cultural, social, and economic destruction of obscene proportions, without redeeming positive practical value or importance of any kind.
      “Unconstitutional State Licensing of Marriage followed by unconstitutionally forced dissolution of that licensed marriage is, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson contends, precisely the kind of law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof which the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Rights in Article I of the Florida Constitution were BOTH designed to prevent.

[1]           This Court should be aware that Judge Oftedal, on the record, refused to hear or rule upon any constitutional issues in his court, which is surely a denial of Kathy Ann Garcia’s rights under both the State and Federal Constitutions of Florida and the United States.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s