Analysis regarding the Kentucky Kim Davis case and the issuing of ‘marriage licenses’ to Gays

Open letter to all the judges, Congressmen, attorneys, and People of the United States

FROM: Paul A. Guthrie, Legal Analyst, Political Scientist, Natural Law Scholar, Author of the book Demonic Positivism

After listening to both sides of the argument regarding Gay marriage, reading the complete travesty of false law coming out of the Supreme Court in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, and seeing a rogue out-of-control federal judge jailing a Kentucky county clerk for not obeying his lawless dictates, I have no choice but to try to enlighten all involved as to what the science of the law is, in hopes that we can return to human reason and the rule of law to govern our society.

Right now, the only thing governing our society since 2009 is lawless opinion and the threat of violence emanating from the courts. It is mob rule, not the rule of law. Decisions and actions concerning people’s rights are not being based upon the rule of law. Yours is not a civil society, and the society fostered by public Gay marriage is a violent society of false religious opinion tyranny and dictatorship. Not the rule of law.

What is meant by the ‘rule of law’?

The ‘rule of law’ is supposed to be based upon the science of Jurisprudence. Jurisprudence is only a science if it includes the Natural Law as one half of the legal system. If the Natural Law is not recognized to be in the legal system by those who are charged with administering the legal system, then their idea of law is not true law at all.

Their idea of ‘law’ is not the objective practice of a science, but only the arbitrary and false subjective religious opinions of those in positions of power dictating their opinions of a false reality with Positive Law, unrestrained by any natural rule or natural order.

This is what we are seeing with the fraudulent rulings in Obergefell v. Hodges which purports to create marriage rights for Gays, which is impossible and unconstitutional, and actually a criminal political act. It is the same problem as in the issue of Obama not being a lawful President because he is not a natural born Citizen, the offspring of a U.S. citizen father. In both of these situations, we are witnessing unrestrained decreed Positive Law in action dictating a false version of reality to the society, enforcing the acceptance of the false reality spun out by judges of the federal bench with violent criminal actions. That is what those like false judge David Bunning and the false justices of the Supreme Court are doing. These think they can play God to create reality according to their will alone, and so order a county clerk to issue a marriage license to a Gay couple, and then jail her for contempt if she refuses. No such power or right exists for judges.

Mr. David Bunning, who is not even a lawful authorized judge under Obama the false President, has no lawful authority to order Kim Davis to issue a ‘marriage license’ to Gay couples, which she is most definitely not compelled by law to do, nor to hold her in contempt for refusing to misuse the authority of Positive Law as he unlawfully ordered her to do. Mr. David Bunning has no knowledge of law, and is just practicing his own personal subjective, i.e. religious, opinion. I refuse to call him a judge because he is pushing his own private opinions, not practicing the rule of law.

Here are a couple of quotes from this imposter judge David Bunning which clearly expose and sum up the problem for the nation.

“Personal opinions, including my own, are not relevant to today,” Bunning, a federal district judge, told Davis and the courtroom Thursday. “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.”

“Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense. Oaths mean things.”

With his own words, false judge David Bunning indicts himself, proving that he has no lawful authority or comprehension of what he is doing, is not obeying his own oath to uphold and defend the law of the Constitution, and he is practicing a private subjective religion of law, not the scientific rule of law. His own baseless belief, that the natural law does not supersede the positive law authority of the court, is not defensible.

Let us examine this false and absurd personal ‘opinion’ that, “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.” This is the entire point of why Gay marriage is not a law, and Kim Davis does not have to issue a license, is because Natural Law is indeed the superior and controlling pre-eminent jurisdiction of the legal system which does in fact supersede the authority of the court and Congress both. This is a fact of Nature and of U.S. Jurisprudence that is beyond the comprehension of this ignorant man, who is functionally insane and has no business being a judge if he cannot accept that Nature and her rules, the Natural Law legal jurisdiction, is part of the legal system and objectively dictates what is reality and law, which both he and Kim Davis must submit to as a matter of Science. The fact that Nature supersedes governments positive law authority is a scientific fact, declared in the Declaration of Independence, and codified as the very basis of the U.S. Constitution by the natural born Citizen clause requirements for the Office of President, which federal judges do not understand or recognize either, and also is in Article III, Section 2 concerning the scope of judicial authority.

The fact that the Natural Law is the superior and controlling jurisdiction of the legal system, and not a “precedent” but a long-standing basis of the Constitution, is easily verified by reading Article III, Section 2, where the two jurisdictions of the courts are declared to be the ‘Law’ and the ‘Equity’ jurisdictions. The ‘Law’ jurisdiction is referring to Natural Law as one half of the legal system. Equity Law, Admiralty Law, and Maritime Law are all Positive Law, the legal opposite of Natural Law. The ‘Law’ jurisdiction means offenses to the Laws of Nature, as declared in the Declaration of Independence, violations of the natural order, violations of Natural Law. It is the jurisdiction of Nature which defines what is a Crime, what is Liberty, Justice, a “natural born Citizen”, and defines marriage between a man and woman. These are not defined by the decreed opinions of mankind nor by Positive Law.

The ‘precedent’ which is being established is being done by Obergefell v. Hodges and by the lawless opinions of false rogue judges like Bunning, who are creating their own ‘precedent’ of abandoning wholesale, and eliminating, one half of the legal system, by their will alone. Banishing the Natural Law half of Just law from the society and from the courts and legal system, thus eliminating the scientific and objective rule of law. They are making what is now called ‘law’ to be nothing but subjective and arbitrary false ‘opinion’, so that a ruling elite privileged class of attorneys can dictate our behavior and rights to us. That is what the false judges Kagan and Sotomayor did in Obergefell v. Hodges, and that is what Bunning is doing to Kim Davis, and to the people and State of Kentucky.

The State legislatures are not empowered to define marriage between a man and a woman. Nature is that which already defines it this way, which secures natural political rights for a father, mother, and their offspring. The State legislatures are compelled to recognize this natural order definition, and craft their codes to reflect this natural order to protect the natural law jurisdictional rights. They are not empowered with positive law to invent the right to marriage, only to declare what the right is, as observed under the Natural Law jurisdiction, and protect it by positive law enactments. They do not invent it. The rules are just discovered in Nature and its protections codified in Positive Law. The rules are not invented by mankind, but this fact of reality is beyond false judge Bunning, as clearly indicated by his absurd and outrageous ‘opinion’ that natural law does not supersede his Positive Law authority of the court. As a scientific legal matter removed from judges’ opinions, yes, it most certainly does!

The Positive Law does not define Nature, Nature defines the Positive Law. What false judge Bunning is saying, is that the legal system which he administers is now only recognized to be solely Positive Law. This is false, because the Natural Law half is mandated in Article III, Section 2. If what Mr. Bunning is saying were true, it would mean that judges and Congressmen are empowered by Positive Law to decree Nature and reality to be according to the opinions of judges and Congressmen. For example, if false judge Bunning says that White is Black, then it is so; or if he says that the Sun is cold, not hot, then the physicists are wrong, trumped by the courts’ and judges’ Positive Law decrees which will alter Nature and reality to comply with the judge’s opinions. If a judge or Congressman says that the sky is Red not Blue, then that is the ‘law’. Or if a judge or State Secretary of State says that “natural born Citizen” means the same as ‘naturalized citizen’, then that is the reality, regardless of the truth that they are legally opposite of one another. Or if a judge decrees that the Earth is the center of the solar system, not the Sun, then the Sun will move over and the Earth will be the new center, because, according to false judge Bunning, natural law is not controlling over positive law powers. In other words, false judge Bunning believes that reality is what judges dictate it to be, not what Nature dictates it to be. According to Bunning, we are not to be governed by reason, and a science of jurisprudence based upon the objective observations of the rules of Nature, even though that is mandated by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Instead, reality is dictated to us by judge’s opinions according to Positive Law alone, which trumps Nature, science, and the Constitution! INSANITY!

Therefore, according to these false judges, the purpose of the positive law is not to codify protections of the natural order in order to protect Natural Law rights, but instead the purpose of Positive Law is to provide a personal venue for those in the office of judge or Congressman to dictate reality to the citizens. To provide government officials with the authority to dictate behavior to the rest of us in society who are not attorney judges or Congressmen.

Marriage is defined in Nature to be between a man and a woman as a discovered natural order, which is what ‘Law’ means in Article III Section 2. It means according to the natural order. This natural order is just discovered by mankind, not invented, nor defined by mankind. Marriage is the result of how the natural biological rules of sexual reproduction secure the natural political right inheritance of offspring, particularly the inheritance of natural membership in the political society from one’s citizen father, i.e., natural born Citizen status.

When it comes to Gays and marriage, marriage is not defined as a natural order for Gays, because Gays cannot have sex in a sexually-exclusive relationship with another of the same sex to produce offspring, such as a natural born Citizen who can be President. Thus there are no natural political rights which are of a public concern to be protected by the society with a Gay ‘marriage’. Furthermore, the society and government (Positive Law) cannot define ‘marriage’ for Gay people, because only the Gay couple can define what their contract means to them. It is not up to the society or to the government to define what is meant by ‘Gay marriage’. Also, what is meant by a ‘Gay marriage’ can vary from one Gay couple to another Gay couple, because it is strictly an artificial invented concept, not a recognized natural order. Who gets to invent this concept of Gay marriage and define it? The government, the society, and the Positive Law are not authorized or empowered to do this. The sole purpose of Positive Law is to codify recognition and protections of the Natural Law jurisdiction. If invented rights are to be created, first and foremost they must not violate the natural order, natural law rights. That is why we are supposed to have Positive Law, in order to protect the natural law rights which supersede the court’s authority. That is the first rule of Jurisprudence. Furthermore, it is physically and legally impossible, as a matter of the science of Jurisprudence, to violate the rights of Gays simply because you use the Positive Law to codify protection of the natural law rights of males and females. Thus it is obviously impossible that the State’s marriage laws, which only recognize marriage to be between a man and a woman, a natural order, can possibly incite a violation of Equal Protection towards Gays. It is impossible, thus the court’s findings in Obergefell v. Hodges are equally impossible. Obviously, what is being taught to attorneys is not scientific jurisprudence. They are teaching them a false religion of law, not the science of law.

The natural order is defined by observing the natural laws, and the court is supposed to recognize science and reality to be binding upon the courts. False judge Bunning believes that Natural Law cannot supersede the positive law powers of the court, which is the outrageous lie of monarchs and tyrants, so clearly he does not even comprehend the purpose or limitations of court authority and powers. He does not comprehend that Natural Law is opposite and opposed to Positive Law (court authority), and it is the controlling and superior pre-existing legal jurisdiction of law which does indeed supersede the courts authority, and also defines what that authority is.

Now we see the problem clearly. All of this is happening because the judges believe wrongly that they are a law unto themselves, unrestrained by Nature and reality, or by anything, including Natural Law authority, which they do not recognize even though it has been codified in the Constitution’s Article III, Section 2 as the ‘Law’ jurisdiction since 230 years ago, and judges are mandated to humble themselves to it!

When it comes to ‘Gay marriage’, their contract is a PRIVATE RIGHT, not a PUBLIC RIGHT. The Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges failed to identify just what the right is. They falsely claim a right which they do not even identify, claiming it to be contained within the 14th Amendment, which is absurd. The 14th Amendment is entirely about securing citizenship for aliens who are born in the U.S., and has nothing whatsoever to do with securing rights for Gays, who are not being denied citizenship rights.

For Gays who wish to ‘marry’, let me explain the right that they are trying to secure. They are trying to secure the right to pursue Happiness, which is a natural political right. Gay couples are not trying to secure natural political rights for offspring, such the right to create a natural born Citizen. Only a man and a woman can create a new natural citizen and secure their child’s natural political rights by act of the public marriage.

For Gays, the act of marriage is purely to satisfy their own selfish emotional needs and sexual desires. Why does the public need to know, that one male has given another male the sexually-exclusive right to put his penis up the other’s anus? What public political interest does this serve, since that form of sex cannot produce an offspring? It secures no public interest right at all, and is just gay pornography forced upon the public without their consent. Thus it is a misuse of the Positive Law authority of the courts to order it.

Thus for Gays, they want a marriage in order to secure their personal emotional happiness alone. It is not the function of the Positive Law, or within the authority of the society or State to grant this or secure this. Gays must do this for themselves with a private contract, because Gay marriage is a Private Right, not a Public Right. It is not any of the public’s business, and not a public political issue. For Gays, they can contract a private union with another person, stipulate the terms of the union, and go to the clerk of the county and file their private contract so that the public will be put on notice. But it does not require the State to sanction it, or issue a license, and no one is bound to recognize it, other than the parties bound to the contract and a judge who would adjudicate if that contract is broken. In this fashion, everyone’s rights are protected, and Gays can have a private union that they can believe is a ‘marriage’ if they want to, but no one is forced under the Positive Law against their will or conscience to recognize it. That is how Gay marriage would work in a civil society governed by the rule of law, not governed by violence.

This attempt to redefine marriage is the same religio-monarchic governance violent to natural inherited rights which the courts, judges, attorneys, Congressmen, and society at large, who refuse to recognize the Law jurisdiction of Nature, the Natural Law, or the Laws of Nature to be part of the legal system, and prior and superior to, and superseding the opinions of judges and Congressmen, have been promoting that caused Obama to be installed and maintained as a false illegitimate President. He is not legitimate and has no lawful authority to be the President because he is not a “natural born Citizen”, born as a natural member of the political base of the republic due to inheritance of natural political rights from a citizen father. But no one can see this, because no one recognizes Nature and Her rules to be a superior authority which dictates reality and what constitutes law as an objective science of jurisprudence.

As it turns out, the same rule of law which governs nbC status and proves that Obama is not a lawful or legitimate President, also defines marriage between a man and woman. It is the natural order rule of Nature, i.e., natural law, which states that, as males do not give birth to offspring, so males cannot rely upon the witness testimony of others at the time of birth of their offspring in order to prove their paternity; thus fathers must rely solely upon their own witness testimony to legitimate their offspring in order to secure the natural political rights of the offspring in the father’s society. This is why marriage is defined as a natural order between only males and females, because since males do not give birth to offspring, the marriage act is a Public Political Act which informs the society of the sexual exclusivity, that the female’s reproductive rights are spoken for, so that the future offspring born will have already been claimed and legitimated by the husband-father. This is the same rule, codified as 8 USC 1409 and declared and explained by the Supreme Court in 2001 in the case Nguyen v. INS 533 U.S. 53 (2001), which defines that a natural born Citizen is simply the legitimated offspring of a citizen father, and which defines marriage as a natural order and public political right between a man and woman in order to secure such political rights of their offspring. These two issues, the law of marriage and the law of inherited natural citizenship, are inextricably linked by the same natural law at their basis which is being systematically denied.

The American people are so out of touch with this reality, that they cannot even read “natural born Citizen” and figure out that in the civil law, the adjective phrase “natural born” just means the legal opposite of ‘adopted’, as in the sentence, “Are those your natural born children or are they adopted?” The “natural born” children are a function of Natural Law authority, i.e., sexual reproduction of the biological parents, which creates a natural right for the parents to claim their offspring as theirs. The adopted child is a function of Positive Law authority creating a ‘legal right’ to claim a child as theirs.

If you look up the term “natural children” in the Bouvier Law Dictionary, 1856, 6th rev. ed. here: then you will discover that ‘natural’, i.e., “natural born”, is simply the legal opposite of ‘adopted’. Thus “natural born Citizen” simply means, NOT the adopted citizen. The adopted citizen, called ‘naturalized’, is one who is the offspring of a non-citizen father, like Obama. The non-adopted “natural born” is simply the offspring of a citizen father who comes from a State of the Union. These are the two types of citizenship, and that is all it means.

The 14th Amendment does not even apply to the offspring of citizen fathers, unless the father is unknown. The “natural born” Citizen of Article II is describing an inherited natural right of citizenship. This is most definitely not the bestowed legal right which is granted to natural born SUBJECTS, i.e., to those offspring of non-citizen fathers who are born in the U.S. (jus soli) or born to a citizen mother (jus sanguinis). The right to be a “natural born” Citizen is only inherited from a citizen father, offspring who are not born as ‘subjects’ of the federal government for citizenship purposes.

The place of birth (14th Amendment, Positive Law only) was only supposed to apply to foreign alien offspring of non-U.S. citizen fathers, to adopt them and grant them legal citizenship at birth as automatically naturalized citizens; this is the legal opposite of a “natural born Citizen”. Persons not inheriting natural political membership from a U.S. citizen father are not supposed to be able to be President. This can be verified in the seminal 1856 Bouvier Law Dictionary of American Constitutional Law, link given above, under the term “naturalized citizen”, which states that naturalized citizens, like Obama, have all of the same rights as the natural born citizen, EXCEPT the right to be President or Vice President. This is by natural definition, as no one can be a chief representative of the natural political base of which he is not a member.

It is axiomatic that the offspring of a non-citizen father is born as a political alien with respect to the offspring of a citizen father who comes from a State of the Union, thus they must be adopted and naturalized. This is legislated to be automatic at birth if the offspring is born to a citizen mother, or born under the territorial jurisdiction of Congress, i.e., born here under the 14th Amendment. These only qualify as naturalized citizens, not as ‘natural born’ Citizens.

It is obvious that unless your father is a free ‘citizen’, only then can he use his sperm to create another natural born citizen. But if your father is not a ‘citizen’, only a ‘subject’ of the state, or of a monarchy form of government, or a refugee stateless person, or a slave, then this father can only use his sperm to create a natural born SUBJECT or slave, and he cannot use his sperm to create a natural born ‘citizen’. It is obvious and simple to comprehend, but everyone calls Obama ‘President’ which is a lie of Biblical proportions and a subjective religious opinion which violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, not a scientific fact of Nature. This is happening because judges and Congressman believe that their positive law decrees trump the natural law and trump the Constitution, which is a lie. Everyone is functionally insane. This is what happens when you abandon the Natural Law, i.e., abandon reason and the rules of Nature and reality so that they removed from being the basis of your legal system.

You can read more about this legal science in my book, Demonic Positivism versus the Science of “natural born Citizen” available here:, and at the book website:

Here is the analysis of the problems that fake judges like Bunning are having with the Christian attorneys and those Christians like Kim Davis refusing to issue marriage licenses to Gay couples, and the mistakes that the plaintiffs are making:

First, the fake judges erroneously believe, due to their ignorance of the science of law called Jurisprudence, that Natural Law is not part of their legal system, which is false because it is the prior superior half of the legal system as codified in Article III, Section 2 as the ‘Law’ jurisdiction. The entire purpose of the Positive Law (Equity Law) was to codify protections of the discovered natural order and natural rights which only come from the Natural Law jurisdiction; not violate them as public ‘Gay marriage’ laws do.

Second, the attorneys for the Christian resisters do not comprehend the Natural Law legal jurisdiction, believing falsely that their case depends upon a belief in God, which is an opinion, not a scientific fact. So they attempt to argue that their client’s rights are being violated as a violation of a religious belief in the Bible or in God, when none of that is even the point, is irrelevant, and all unnecessary. They fail to inform the court that the natural rights involved only depend upon the objective awareness and acceptance of Nature to exist and be the provider of natural rights, as are authorized and mandated to be recognized and protected in the Constitution by the Article III, Section 2 inclusion of the ‘Law’ jurisdiction in the authorization of the federal courts.

The mistake being made by the Christian attorneys is they are making their client’s case about a belief in the Bible and in God, which carries no weight with the court because those are only subjective opinions, not scientific facts. That is clearly what fake justice Bunning is seeing that made him say things like “Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense. Oaths mean things.” What the judge is seeing, because this is the case being made by Kim Davis and her attorneys, is that it is Ms. Davis’ belief in the Bible and God which is causing her to refuse to issue the license to Gays, and that is not a viable basis to deny the license. And the judge is correct. The correct viable basis is to focus only on the objective scientific provable facts which state that the Natural Law of Nature provides a natural order and natural rights, and that the purpose of the Positive Law is to protect the natural law rights, not issue licenses which are contrary to the natural order. There is not any valid statutory provision created by State law or Federal Law for Gays to have a ‘marriage license’. The court is ordering Ms. Davis to follow a law which does not exist. The court is ordering her to follow the religious opinions of the court, which she is not duty-bound to obey.

But Ms. Davis is countering this with merely her own religious opinions, because it is only a religious opinion that Nature and the Laws of Nature, the natural order and natural law, and natural rights come from a ‘God’. How Nature and the Natural Law came to be here governing our legal system is an unknowable philosophical question, is not the issue, and cannot be a valid basis to defend Ms. Davis’ actions. The entire issue is that Nature exists, that it is real and follows a natural order, which is her job to protect with the Positive Law of the State, and that the federal court is bound to protect the natural order by the inclusion of the ‘Law’ jurisdiction in Article III, Section 2, under which the federal court is authorized as subservient to the natural law, to be governed by the natural order of things, not by religious opinions of judges or plaintiffs. This point is not being made regarding Obama and the meaning of natural born Citizen, and is also not being made regarding Gay marriage. Now we are at a point where the Natural Law legal jurisdiction has been abandoned by both sides in favor of dueling personal subjective religious opinions, and the rule of law has been turned into the rule of whoever wins this battle of opinions.

Of course, the religious opinions in the federal courts will continue to trump the religious opinions of Christians like Kim Davis, and the scientific natural rights of natural born Citizens. It is a sad day for our nation to be living once again under religious monarchic tyranny emanating from all sides. The big loser is science and the rule of law. This is life under King George III all over again.

I hope that this exposition will open the minds of some to the science of jurisprudence, and help re-establish the rule of law. I can provide more elaboration of the basis of law, please contact me for any further assistance.

Paul Guthrie