1. When Democracy is defined as the "majority rules "
does this indicate that the minority will legally be
discriminated-against
deprived, and/or conspired-against?

2. What is "frivolous and malicious " about "Protected
Citizens " speaking up for himself/herself their loved
ones, and any other who may be negatively impacted
by the concept the "majority rules"; especially, if they
are actually of the "Protected Class "?

3. Now that homosexuals have taken over many aspects
of society, especially Respondents, does this expose
the problem and result of non-compliance?

4. Just because the Petitioner is a heterosexual should
this automatically exclude him from Redress of
Grievances depriving him of not only his Constitutional
Rights, but an honest, intelligent, rational, and judicious
need for Litigation in order to address the damages
sustained due to such?

5. What is more validating and affirming than answering
the legal questions posed in law, and is failure to do
so a correctable error?

6. Can Respondents abridge the Constitution during the
performance of their duties, because they are
homosexuals and Petitioner not?

When is the minority legally excluded, unprotected, deprived, and/or conspired-against?