BITEZ, SPIRITZ & BOWLZ--FUNKY SPOKANE SHOP. IDAHO: WHO DO YOU THINK PROCREATED ALL THE GAYS & LESBIANS? YOU GOT IT, THE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES YOU ARE LORDING OVER GAY COUPLES, AS THE ONLY ONES WORTHY OF MARRIAGE, EVEN OUTLAWING CIVIL & DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS! HAVE YOUR STATE ATTORNEYS GENERALS, OR YOUR PRIVATE COUNSEL, EVER HEARD OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, CAN'T DENY OR ABRIDGE ANY OF PRIVILEGES ANY OTHER CITIZEN HAS, OR DENY RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY & PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS! CON LAW 101! YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE A CONTINUED LEGAL EDUCATION SEMINAR ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, YOU KNOW, THAT SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND! FUN, FUN, FUN ARGUMENTS TO RIP APART! LOL!

They Say, Those Who Can't Do--Teach; Well That Would Not Be Me, But it is TRUE of the NSA!

I was pissed as hell yesterday, like I am, very time these assholes, steal my intellectual property, which is every time I do a kick ass analysis of a hot topic issues, using constitutional articles and amendments to prove my case, or point of view.  You see, I have paid the price for this knowledge, don't need notes other than to look or make reference to some newspaper articles, like I did yesterday, when hours of reading and word typing . . . don't need to think much, because I have an in depth knowledge of both the U.S. and Utah Constitutions, having studied, thought, researched, written, thought again, listened to people like, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in her Senate Confirmation Hearings, with 32 pages of notes, and anything I didn't understand, or questioned, I looked up, following newspaper reporting on big cases throughout the country, having taught argumentation & research, English, and family law, and having written many constitutional analysis, using both constitutions I am most familiar with . . . also, having co-authored, contributed, fought to get the official state of Utah seal on the cover, included, many helpful hints to help my clients, friends, and political associates, understand the levels of the local, state and federal government, with constitutions, statutes, regulations, rules, ordinances, covenants, etc, and complied information on what due process and other constitutional issues are, in a pocket sized copy of the Utah Constitution & Fun Facts!  

Plus having fought, clawed, kicked, and written my way to the United States Supreme Court Bar!  For God sake, I am not fucking amateur at this stuff, so, it is not me, who can't teach, write, analyze, argue with authority, it is the CIA, legal counsel, and their dummy government doubles, who have to steal from the real constitutional law attorney!  And I am getting damned sick of this shit, every time . . . when, they, could not do even one of my blogs, not one analysis, nor one of my cases . . . think about this people, if they could do it, they wouldn't need to steal it, try to make me disappear from the face of the plant, harass, chase, threaten, cheat, try to intimidate, while only proving my case against them . . . I don't scream when I can just freely exercise my 1st amendment rights, that people want to here, being very fair, and balanced, unlike the channel these dip shits listen to all the time; I have no planned outcome when I write, or look at the plain language, intent or history of a particular law or issue, it comes out the way, I best can figure it out, fucking according to the LAW for hell sake!  

ENOUGH!  People need to hear this from the original source, not fucked with by biased, interested parties, who most likely presented themselves as me, got it fucking wrong, you may want to knock this damn ass, theft of intellectual property, and just go to the source, the one who paid the god-damn price for the knowledge!  Shit, grow the fuck up . . . like the title of this blog, the law, is the law . . . is the law!  This is not the law according to JoAnn, and you, with your totally limited knowledge, other than what you steal, should not be so arrogant, and stupid, to present yourself, as me, and then change and alter what the fuck I have just written, either to support you side, or stop looking like the fools, you are, or suppress the opponents, side of the arguments, this is about justice, judicial economy, happiness over ego, and you need to bow the fuck out of the law, you and your ilk, obviously are not cut out for this profession!  And most of your chicks are not even attorneys!  That might be a clue . . . as to why you don't and they don't know this, is you are not either, or you are an average attorney at best, and a hideous attorney at worst!

Note: there is a woman, who looks exactly like my sister Sue, a double, the third of the Southwick girls and children, who is not an attorney, nor would I consider her daughter, Meggie to be one, also claiming to be a constitutional law attorney, who can't seem to hold a job, or keep a client, and chooses, the Mormon way, of being an educated nanny for her sister, Sarah, who has 4 kids under the age of 5!  But she is sitting here, online because there are, as stated before, my original blog, bad ass con law chick blog and the government's theft version who steals all the hits or results, and gets money, takes the credit, for what I write, same bio, same articles as far as I know, but the do the second on under, bad ass con law chick blog, tricky, huh!  We, both JoAnns, and the imitation Sue, being me, yet looking like Sue, cleaver as a toilet lever, at the mall, near Nordstrom and the Expresso Bar; you see the real Sue is far, away, allegedly in Turkey on a mission for the Mormon Church, but really at some CIA, FBI, NSA cheap ass law school type thing that they put Kay, Shelley, Rachel, Tiff, Marcie, there are many Soutwick girls, I am the second oldest, graduated from Bountiful High School, Bountiful, Utah; however Sue, actually received my invitation and is the one who told me what was going on . . . 40 years, should erase everyone's memories of JoAnn . . . dream on, you Bitch!  She always wanted to be me and be an attorney, CIA, Make a Wish Foundation, granting wishes all over the place . . .

Idaho's Arguments to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in, None other than, San Francisco!  Great Place to Try this Bull Shit!

ARGUMENT # 1

Idaho's ban promotes the welfare of children because, only opposite sex couples can procreate.

Don't let me confuse counsel with the fact that 2 of the 4 gay couples in the lawsuit, that gives rise for this conversation today, are raising children.  Just because couples of the opposite sex can have children or procreate, doesn't qualify, justify, validate, give credence to the fact that they either have been good parents, will be good parents, or will be good parents in the future, nor precluded gay couples, who may actually be bringing children to the marriage, from say, an opposite sex marriage that didn't work out, or that they realized that they, were, actually in fact gay, from being good parents, nor does it rule out artificial insemination, adoption, surrogacy, or another type of arrangement, that is highly possible to bring children into the world, now days.  

Some gay couples, may actually be able to provide a better, more stable, and loving relationship, that opposite sex partners . . . have you heard the statistics on spousal abuse, child abuse, incest . . . which is a scary notion for one of the later arguments of this heterosexual attorney, later, shocking, and the prosecutor should be listening and taking note, and getting those charges ready!  And, there is a large need for children in foster homes, those on the streets, older kids who are hard to adopt, and minorities that are not as adoptable, not to mention crack babies, drug addicted babies, abandoned babies, where the gay couple, ready, willing and able to take a child under their roof and into their relationship, would be a boon to society, doing an incredible service to everyone, especially the child!

I would say, that argument fails!

ARGUMENT #2

Even if they, gays, seek a civil marriage, they still can't procreate.

Now, this is where the attorneys ought to get their bar license yanked for failing, constitutional law 101, without, acknowledging the 1st amendment, understanding basics of that document, and the Bill of Rights or the amendments, that the freedom of religion clause, has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in landmark cases, interpreted, and that is their job, the clause to mean, that there is a separation of church and state!  The root of bringing up the distinction of a civil marriage, would suggest to me, either they are coming from the religious argument, that, we feel threatened, as a religion, Mormons predominate Idaho, as they do in Utah, and many western states, while there is a large, anti-Mormon faction up there, that is the view point they are coming from, as attested from this statement, trying to distinguish, a church marriage, like in the Mormon temples, as opposed to a civil marriage . . . 

Just this morning, a friend of mine, raised Catholic, until the age of 12, then baptized Mormon, poor girl, said that the churches are going to be forced to allow gays to be married in their churches, there were churches being sued to make it possible for gays to be married in church . . .  WHAT?  Again, a blatant misunderstanding of the counsel for the gay couples too.  The U.S. Constitution, that creates a wall of separation between church and state, swings both ways, and that is the beauty of it.  That the churches are to stay out of the secular business of the state, and the state is to stay out of the business of the church, even the Supreme Court is reticent to get involved in any issue, within the church itself, the firing of a teacher, forcing religious institutions and colleges to participate in the birth control part of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, even in the Hobby Lobby case, a religiously formed and organized corporation, for profit, was protected, just recently by the, decision, while I don't agree with the Court, I do, support it, until further, cases or knowledge comes out.

Churches Don't Get to Double as Political Organizations, Then Scream Foul Play, When the State or the Feds, Take Away There Tax Exempt Status! 

There is protection, one from the other, unless, however, the church decides to go political, like they are in the newspaper article, I mentioned yesterday, before it was yanked out from under my face, the one with 4 church organizations, joining the Mormon Church, asking the Supremes to resolve this issue once and for all . . . Churches should never had been involved, are not effected, and will not be forced to allow gay marriages in any of their allegedly sacred buildings, unless, that is, they chose to get overly involved, becoming a political entity, rather than a religious one!  Which, the Mormon Church runs a foul of all the time, and I would imagine that is the case in Idaho too!

The founding fathers, left their religion, so to say, at the door of the Constitutional Convention, being multi-denominational, and decided to do what was best for the secular nation, while being one nation, under God, recognizing he/she as the designer of inalienable rights, but also, providing for a set of laws, that would accommodate, all the races, creeds, and religions that were already in American, and all that would come . . . bring us your tired, your poor, etc., from all the corners of the earth, being the melting pot of the world, and all the better for it, all you little Aryan Nation type up there in Idaho, white supremacists, get over it! The 14th amendment, in particularly, protects the minority from the majority, later.  You can tell people to vote, but not who to vote for, nor how to vote of a particular issue . . . that is crossing the line of demarcation that separates church and state!

So, ditto, from the arguments in response to the first issue or argument.

ARGUMENT #3 . . . A LOOPY ONE!

If gay marriages were allowed, it would hurt children raised by same sex couples and it would mean, people would have to be allowed polygamous and incestuous marriages too. ?

That is one hell of a quantum leap, especially going all the way to marrying one of your children, which is not unheard of in your polygamous communities, as totally sick as that may be, they, truly, honestly mean that, it is not a typo, or a mistake . . . and they are worried about gay marriages?  Truth makes reason stare! Read the book, When Men are Gods, written during the Warren Jeffs, XYZ Ranch, incident in Texas, where the Arizona Attorney General, with the help of a private investigator and a woman, from Utah, trying to help woman from polygamist communities escape, tracked down the alleged prophet of the FLDS Church, with roots in Mormonism, and who continued to practice the principle.  

The realities of polygamy, which was forbidden forever, as a condition for statehood, in the Utah Constitution, and their mixing of wives, sister wives, and spiritual wives, makes gay marriage look like sainthood!  in that book, it speaks of the abuse of Jeffs to his wife, teaching the young girls, to be sweet, and then Jeff's demonstrates what he means, using his wife, who was the teacher as an example, when he takes her by the braid in her hair, twists, his hands, until she is red in the face, not telling him to stop, and then he bends her in this twisted position, to the ground, and then brings her back up, and says, now that is what I mean when I mean sweet!  

There was a guy in the book, who was married to about 12 women if I recall, so plenty of sex, but he didn't stop with his wives, nor his daughters, whom he took on their birthdays, and when they became mature enough to procreate, and the would on their last daddy daughter date, tell them, they were no longer to think of him as their father, but their husband, and he would break them in so to say, and often, that sexual urge not checked by the secular world, extended to their sons, as well!  And this lifestyle, seems so normal to these folks in both, Utah and Idaho, that they don't bat an eye about telling a 9th Circuit Judge, or panel of three judges, that this is normal, and gay marriages cannot be!  Are you fucking kidding me!  Why in the hell, do you think that Jeffs and the crew, down in Arizona/Utah, in Colorado City and Hildale, kicked out, I believe it was, 2,000 Lost Boys . . . too much competition!  Normal?

Wasden, the Attorney for Governor Otter, Argued

Attorney Wasden, argued, that Idaho's marriage laws don't discriminate.  They permit a man to marry a woman, or a woman to marry a man, regardless of sexual orientation; Idaho's marriage laws treat men and woman equally.  In the Utah amicus brief or friend of the court brief, they were relying on history and tradition for their arguments.  The history behind that type of argument, is that one of the first lawsuits for gay marriage, happened in Hawaii, in the late, seventies, if I am not mistaken.  And the court voted against gay marriage, based on the notion, that traditionally and historically, marriage was between a man and a woman, therefore, marriage between same sex couples, violated both tradition and history.

Let is be known, that there are cases before the Court, from both Hawaii and Nevada, with Hawaii, already performing same sex marriages, Nevada refusing to defend their state law banning gay marraiges, after the ruling on Prop 8, from California, finding the ban on gay marriages to be unconstitutional, agreeing with a lower court finding that both the Mormon and Catholic Churches, lacked the necessary standing or injury, to intervene in the case, making both states in compliance with the law as interpreted by the Court, thus following precedence.

Courts Are Limited To the Issues or Questions Attorneys Ask 

The United State Supreme Court, and any court of appeals, is limited to the arguments the attorneys present, and that is it, regardless of how lame, inane, and stupid they may be, as was the case in the hideous case, Citizens United, that even Congress, is taking action to stop all the freely running money without limits, being funneled into campaigns, even from states, parties and special interest groups, that are influencing representatives that are voting according to the money, rather than the people who put them in office in the first place, but they are trying to stop the flowing of dark money!  Even the attorneys, know they didn't ask the right questions, which limits the Court.

The lower courts of appeals, or district courts, in the federal system, marking the path to the U.S. Supreme Court, were all relying on the constitutional arguments, of whether or not the bans were constitutional or not?  I am sure, that at the time the first Hawaii case was argued, no constitutional issues were raised, or if they were, the court, missed the boat . . . it is pretty clear.

Constitutional & Statutory Interpretation: (1) Plain language; (2) Intent; and (3) History

This, again, is not the law according to JoAnn S. Secrist, it is the law, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, in all its wisdom, knowledge, research, understanding, and 40 law clerks a piece, as understand it, or at least at this time in history . . . but these are the three elements, that the High Court uses to determine what the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of an issue is, using the document as the starting point, for the plain language, which, if clear, that is as far as you need go, in determining the interpretation of the article, amendment or clause.  So we will start there.  When the plain language is somewhat confusing, we turn to the intent of the founding fathers, or the intent behind the basic tenants and principles of the Constitution, and history may also lend a understanding to the issue.

Supremacy of the National Government

United State Constitution, Article VI, [2]  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United State which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void."

With these words, Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Supreme Court's role in the new government.  Hereafter, the Court was recognized as having the power to review all acts of Congress where constitutionality was at issue, and judge whether they abide by the Constitution.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819

"Let the end be legitimate . . . and all means which are . . . consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional."

Chief Justice Marshall, invoked this phrase to establish the right of Congress to pass laws that are "necessary and proper" to conduct the business of the U.S. government.  Here, the court upheld Congress' power to create a national bank.

Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 3

In Utah Constitution, as in most, I would suspect, there is language to re-enforce this notion with each state, and their judges, that the state is an inseparable part of the Union, and the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land . . . okay, with that in mind, let's move to the document itself.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

The first ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) were ratified effective, December 15, 1791.

AMENDMENT XIV
CIVIL RIGHTS

The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.  Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

• licenses have been defined as privileges, driver licenses, hunting licenses, law licenses, medical licenses, even to the fact that degrees and licenses in the professions, have even been considered property, and taken into consideration in dividing up marital property and assets
• marriage licenses are not just summarily given, but the legislature has defined certain conditions for getting married, like being of age, like a driver license, being of sound mind, and able to consent, knowing what it is one is doing, having intent to be married . . . and there used to be requirements like blood tests, some states have AIDs testing as a requirement of marriage, so this is not necessarily a right, but a privilege
• as far as a state, making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, I have read that there are, possibly, up to 1,000 federal tax laws that are of benefit to married couples; therefore, for a state to deny marriage, is to abridge a same sex couple's privileges, and taking away any immunities from tax reliefs that other citizens get the benefit of.
• you have to be a family member to even get into see a patient in a hospital, at hours other than visiting hours, another privilege that benefits all citizens, that may be abridged or create a discriminatory practice if a gay couple, can't, get married.  My second husband, when I was diagnosed to die, the beginning of all this identity theft, my boyfriend alone at the time, was denied entrance into the hospital, because he was not a family member, if, maybe a restricted area or some reason he couldn't come in, hetero, as he and I were, so he, went and bought a wedding ring and proposed to me, to be able to get into see me!  
• there are spousal immunity statutes in all states, dealing with criminal law, wherein, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their partner, and divulge incriminating testimony, so a potential big time breach of a very important immunity, that could even have consequences of liberty and possibly even carry a death sentence . . . a critical immunity, not to be taken lightly, whom do you confide in, and this person, can be forced to testify against you?  I don't think so, and believe me, I have seen fathers, forced to testify against a drug king pin, or they would arrest the daughter, who smoked pot, while in college and who was just accepted to veterinary school . . . cops heard the info on a wired buy, and used it against the dad, forcing him to do what they said, or else, daddy's little girl was going down!  Marriage prevents that from happening!
• a gay lifestyle is a liberty, and marriage, or being free to marry, or denying that freedom, is to deny a person's liberty, not only to marry, but to have the liberty to be with the one they love.  Like Ellen DeGeneres said, in response to Sarah Palin's, discriminatory comments of same sex marriage, you should be able to marry who you love!  Now this is where the attorney, for the Governor, and Idaho, would jump up and say, see your honor, we, should be able to marry as many women as we like, and as consenting adults, if the woman wants to be married to a polygamist, then she should be able to, and if a man wants to fuck his daughter or son, he should be able to do that to . . . this is where the tradition and history, will come back to bit this asshole in the ass, because, history and tradition, have considered marriage to be between two people!  GOT YA!  Many states, rushed to add amendments to their state constitutions, some of the ones at issue, right now, that clearly state that a marriage is between one man and one woman . . . so, polygamy which is forbidden forever in Utah, is out, and fucking your 12 year old daughter is out too.  And, by the way, most states, as in Utah, you have to be 5 levels of consanguinity away from who you marry, or removed by blood and marriage 5 steps away, so you are not, Woody Allen, and you don't get to marry your daughter, step-daughter, would be out too, because, you are not removed enough to marry them.  That might be challenged, but many marriages are illegal, but, nobody ever challenged it!
• and a biggie, the United States, 14th amendment, refers to PERSONS, and never refers or makes distinctions between men and women, other than to give women suffrage or the right to vote, correcting an error that was discriminatory, for women and blacks!  I challenge counsel for the state of Idaho, or Governor Otter, to find a place in the U.S. Constitution, that makes distinctions between men and women, or even mentions them, other than the one I just mentioned, in all other amendments, articles, and clauses, it makes reference to people, persons, citizens, without respecting, race, sex, religion, age, etc., all the suspect classes of persons.
• states cannot deny any person, within its jurisdiction, or boundaries, the equal protection of the laws . . . what do you not get about this?  That is as plain as it gets!

Conclusion--Idaho?  What Other Arguments Do You Have, Don't Think These Are Going to Work, Neither Will Utah, Nevada, Hawaii or Any Other States Arguments, Who Have Refused to Follow the Precedence that Was Set in the California Case . . . this issue has been decided, once and for ALL!