"B" IS THE WEAKEST LINK IN THE COURTS' LGBT MARRIAGE FIAT

               In American society's sudden lurch to support the oxymoron of same-sex marriage (SSM), the argument is often made that there is no "rational basis" for limiting marriage to one man and one woman.  Indeed, this is the critical foundation for many of the spurious judicial decisions invalidating state laws codifying natural marriage, with the courts perversely distorting the so-called "rational basis" test under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

                These judicial decisions rest on the radical premise that all human civilizations throughout millennial history to the present have been (and remain) patently irrational in their establishment of natural male-female unions as the optimal and exclusive essence of what we call marriage.  The only exceptions to this historical consensus are the coterie of European and Western countries who suddenly discovered in the last 10-15 years that, mirabile dictu, their forefathers were all irrational clods who lacked the sense to ignore the immutable forces of biology and nature.

                Heretofore, however, the millennial and global consensus on the basic nature of mating and marriage has facilitated the unbroken propagation, increase, and advancement of the human race, notwithstanding the epidemics, wars, plagues, and natural disasters that have threatened its survival throughout history.  Surely the burden of proof should fall heavily on those who would suddenly supplant a proven system of sustained survival and growth with an entirely unprecedented and radical lurch into the demographic unknown.  Yet judge after spineless federal judge has simply fallen into step with the prevailing political and academic trend, mechanically adopted the LGBT talking points, and arrogantly dismissed humanity's historical system of civilized self-preservation as "irrational."

                                                                                          gaspee.com
                      Send in the Clowns:  Here Come the Federal Judges to Rule on SSM

                Contrary to this presumptuous judicial sophistry, there are extensive rational grounds for states maintaining the limitation of marriage to male-female unions – for example, the highly reasonable reluctance to institutionalize and encourage dangerous and unsanitary homosexual practices; or simply avoiding the disruptive societal risks of an entirely untried and problematic new paradigm of marriage and family organization.   

                The most compelling rational justification, however, is self-evident to any soberly reasoning individual:  promoting and encouraging same-sex marriage undercuts society's most fundamental function, namely, preserving and perpetuating itself by procreational reproduction.  Simply put, SSM will divert persons capable of fertile procreative unions into sterile same-sex unions. 

                Much of the debate about SSM implicitly presupposes, without expressly stipulating, that homosexual persons constitute but a statistically insignificant percentage of the population.  If only a de minimis percentage of the population is homosexual, it might be argued that enabling or encouraging those persons to enter same-sex marriages (if they marry at all) will not have any meaningful negative effect on the propagation of the nation's population.

                But same-sex marriage is plainly not limited to the marriage of two homosexuals.  In nullifying laws and constitutions limiting marriage to a man and a woman, courts have not simply permitted "gay marriage;" rather, they have opened the door to all kinds and varieties of same-sex marriage.  Thus, there is nothing to prevent a "mixed" marriage between a heterosexual and a homosexual, or, indeed, a marriage of economic convenience between two heterosexuals. Certification as a permanent and exclusive homosexual is certainly not a precondition in the brave new world of same-sex marriage.

                Although same-sex marriages between one or more heterosexuals may prove to be rare – only time will tell – same-sex marriages involving one or more bisexuals is not likely to be rare at all.  And that largely unexplored factor is highly significant.

                By definition, bisexuals are perfectly capable of marrying heterosexuals or other bisexuals of the opposite sex, and producing offspring.  Indeed, there are numerous bisexuals who have parented children either before or after "coming out" with respect to homosexuality.  Acknowledged bisexuals have been especially prominent in the entertainment industry.  David Bowie, Angelina Jolie, Drew Barrymore, and Lady Gaga are only among the more prominent self-proclaimed bi's.  Others, like Elton John, have turned to a seemingly homosexual lifestyle after having previously experienced heterosexual marriages.  Among bisexuals, migration from fertile heterosexual relationships to sterile same-sex relationships has always been a possibility, but it has long been strongly discouraged by both societal norms and the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage.  With the advent of SSM, it will be socially encouraged and approved, and legally endorsed.

                Statistics on this subject are understandably uncertain and varied.  A fairly recent study by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School purported to find that 1.7% of Americans acknowledged themselves to be homosexual, while 1.8% identified as bisexual.  The 1993 Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, on the other hand, purported to find that 5% of men and 3% of women considered themselves bisexual and 4 percent of men and 2 percent of women considered themselves homosexual.  A 2002 study by National Center for Health Statistics found that 1.8% of men ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 2.3& homosexual, and 3.9% as "something else". The same study found that 2.8% of women ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual, 1.3% homosexual, and 3.8% as "something else."

                Despite their variations, it is interesting to note that the studies indicate that bisexuality appears to be more prevalent than homosexuality.  Among other things, this significantly undercuts the established LGBT doctrine that same-sex marriage is justified because it offers the sole marital outlet or opportunity for those who presumably will pursue it.  Needless to say, bisexuals are quite capable of entering and fulfilling marriages with persons of the opposite sex.

                There can be no doubt that there have been literally millions of marriages involving homosexual and bisexual persons that have produced offspring throughout history.  Indeed, until relatively recent times in historical terms, neither men nor women (especially the latter) had much choice in the matter of whom, or whether, they would marry, at least in certain social classes and milieus.  In societies across the globe and in all ages, for example, parents did not exempt their daughters from the necessity of entering a suitable marriage if the daughter professed distaste for either the man they chose for her or for men in general.  And the equivalent for sons, albeit probably to a lesser degree.  Given the stigma of homosexuality in most societies, few parents were likely to know whether or not a child had that orientation in any event.  Whether or not the historical tradition of parents requiring or pressuring their children to marry an opposite sex mate, without regard to sexual "orientation," was fair or sound, it was undoubtedly followed across the ages and societies.    In short, history demonstrates that both bisexuals and homosexuals are capable of entering heterosexual marriages and, however reluctantly or indifferently, producing offspring as a result.

                The critical point is this:  the expanding availability of same-sex marriage will probably divert substantial numbers of persons, particularly bisexuals, from normal man-woman marriages that they otherwise might have pursued.  If 2% of the 300 million-plus U.S. population is bisexual, then there would be over 6 million bisexual Americans; if 4%, then there would be over 12 million.  Heretofore, the marriage laws encouraged such persons to follow their heterosexual inclinations and marry a person of the opposite sex, if they were inclined to marry.

                Now, however, the increased availability of same-sex marriage sharply changes the equation, particularly in the case of genuine bisexuals.  Millions of "bi's" who heretofore would have married a person of the opposite sex, and procreated children, may choose instead to enter a necessarily sterile SSM.  As a result, by definition SSM undercuts a society's compelling interest in propagating itself.  Moreover, inasmuch as even marginal reductions in the rate of a nation's population growth adversely affect its economic growth (except in circumstances of substantially overpopulated nations, a circumstance inapplicable to today's United States), SSM also tends to undercut a nation's or a state's powerful interest in maximizing economic growth. 

                Both of these indisputable effects of legalizing SSM provide at least a rational basis – in reality, a compelling basis – for enacting laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman.  Anyone with even a glimmer of common sense could quickly grasp these obvious implications if presented with the basic facts.  But what would be obvious to a reasonably intelligent 12-year-old is a closed book to the obfuscating pettifoggers in black robes who are bent on subverting humanity's most critical social institution. 

SOLUTION TO OKLAHOMA'S LETHAL INJECTION PROBLEM: THE LONG-DROP NOOSE

     While politicians and media recently hyperventilated over the private racial comments of the aged, cancer-riddled white owner of a pro sports team, comparable public outrage is never expressed over the infinitely more despicable inter-racial offenses perpetrated by black criminals against whites on a regular basis.  See, e.g., http://splashingrocks.blogspot.com/2013/08/media-suppression-of-racial-realities.html.  Like aggravated inter-racial murders, for example.  As compared to private race-related conversations.

     A case in point was the horrific Oklahoma murder of Stephanie Neiman, a 19-year old white girl.  The murderer was a black brute named Clayton Lockett.  Coming upon Lockett in the commission of other crimes, Ms. Neiman was hit in the face with a gun, kidnapped, shot repeatedly, and ultimately buried alive at Lockett's direction. A friend of Ms. Neiman's was also raped at the scene by Lockett and his two accomplices.  After the usual procedural delays and jurisprudential atrocities ordained by the U.S.'s warped, criminal-friendly legal system, Lockett was convicted of murder, rape, kidnapping, assault and battery, and robbery.  Like numerous similarly shocking black-on-white crimes, it was largely ignored or minimized by the mainstream media.

     Eventually, however, the media actually did take a break from their obsessive indignation over Donald Sterling's private conversations to turn some attention to the case of Ms. Neiman's horrendous murder.  But it was not to express any anger at the perpetrator, or sympathy for the victim.  On the contrary, the media's sudden interest in the case was triggered solely by what was uniformly reported as Clayton Lockett's "botched" execution. See, e.g., http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/04/30/4-horrible-forms-of-capital-punishment-more-humane-than-oklahomas-botched-execution/.

               Japan avoids "botched" executions using the reliable "long rope"

     Outlet after outlet rushed to outdo each other in shock and indignation that this murderous monster died of a heart attack after his lethal injection procedure was interrupted due to administration irregularities.  Liberal reporters and commentators employed their most maudlin and lugubrious prose to depict Lockett's purported gasps, twitches, and groans in the course of an execution procedure that was aborted only because of the state's fastidious, court-induced efforts to assure the most painless execution possible.  At any rate, the murderer expired only 43 minutes after the first injection.  Compared to Ms. Nieman's prolonged and grievous sufferings, Lockett's antiseptic execution was a relative walk in the park.

     As though on cue, President Obama soon joined the mournful chorus of liberal concern for the justly executed murderer.  He ruefully declared that Lockett's execution was "deeply troubling," and directed his Afro-racist attorney general, the notorious Eric Holder, to investigate alleged problems respecting implementation of the death penalty.

     Think about that deeply warped response.  Obama did not find the inter-racial brutalization, pistol-whipping, murder, and burying alive of an innocent young girl "deeply troubling."  Instead, he directed his concern entirely to the wildly embellished flaws in the brutal murderer's execution.  This tells us all we need to know about Obama's sense of  values and priorities, not to mention his race-based predilections.

     Those who have watched and waited while a virtuous parent or loved one endures days and weeks (or more) of suffering before finally dying of cancer or some other painful disease are not likely to have great sympathy for this relatively swift death of a malicious murderer who inflicted unspeakable and prolonged suffering upon his hapless victim.  

     The grotesque and grossly disproportionate sympathy for Lockett proclaimed by the media and the anti-death penalty element reflects a profoundly distorted understanding of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment -- not to mention a bizarre predilection to empathize more with brutal murderers than with their victims and the victims' survivors.  

     These death penalty opponents persistently argue that the technical gliches that occasionally result in an imperfect lethal execution render that procedure unconstitutional.  The unspoken premise for this argument is that the state is constitutionally obligated to employ the most painless means of execution possible. With the backing of their liberal allies in the courts, they are successfully changing the meaning of the Eight Amendment. Instead of merely prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment -- by which the Framers meant extremely torturous punishments like drawing-and-quartering -- it would guarantee an essentially painless execution.  This, of course, is constitutional nonsense.

     The condemnations of the states' lethal injection procedures are especially absurd and ironic because it was the anti-death penalty movement itself that has caused most of the states to adopt lethal injection in the first place.  In 1985, for example, a lengthy dissent by Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, an extreme death penalty abolitionist, contended that the electric chair was an unconstitutional means of execution and noted that lethal injection would be a more human method.  Mainly due to the relentless attacks on other modes of execution by abolitionist lawyers, the vast majority of the states that retain the death penalty (at least in theory -- most of them never use it at all) use lethal injection.  

     Now, due to the maudlin furor over murderer Lockett's interrupted, but ultimately effective, execution by lethal injection, the Governor of Oklahoma has predictably suspended all executions, pending a review of the state's protocols for lethal injection executions.  

     But it is obvious to anyone who has followed this issue that death penalty opponents will never accept any technique for lethal injection.  The ACLU and other death penalty abolitionists have openly stated that they consider all methods of execution unconstitutional.  So no amount of tinkering with the combination of chemicals or mode of administration used in lethal injection executions will deter or even reduce the relentless barrage of legal challenges brought by the legions of subsidized attorneys who have made this esoteric issue a cause celebre in the legal profession.

     Even when lethal injections reach the point where the condemned murderer expires as peacefully as T.S. Eliot's "patient etherised upon the table," see The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock, l.3, the abolitionists will not be satisfied.  They aren't really interested in achieving painless and efficient executions.  They prefer to employ the sordid melodrama of so-called botched executions as a convenient propaganda tool to further their acknowledged goal of abolishing the death penalty altogether -- even for crimes so heinous that merely describing them sickens the soul.

     So Oklahoma and other states are wasting their time seeking to perfect the chemical combinations and delivery techniques used in lethal injection.  There is a better, simpler, and more foolproof mode of execution, presently employed by one of the most civilized and pacifist democracies in the world, that would avoid all the complications, gliches, and medical confusion associated with lethal injection.  The states should follow the example of Japan and, to borrow the title of a vintage Clint Eastwood western, "Hang 'em high." That is, employ Japan's method of long-drop hanging.

     Although Japan's murder rate is only about one-fifth of the United States' rate, it deals firmly and forcefully with its murderers, as it does with other violent criminals.  It retains and enforces the death penalty for aggravated murderers.  With a population of only about one-third of the U.S. population, Japan still executed at least eight persons in 2013.  As of March 2012,there were 135 people awaiting execution in Japan.  In short, the death penalty is a genuine and practical element of Japan's penal system.

     Japan's method of execution is long-drop hanging.  In order to facilitate a quick and certain death, Japan's gallows are structured to assure a long drop, sufficiently long to assure a quick and certain death by fracturing the killer's neck.  

     While Japan's method may not be peaceful and pretty, it is swift and certain.  Nor can it be seriously argued that hanging constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.  Hanging was the accepted, reliable, and "usual" method of execution during the era of the Framers and long afterward.  Indeed, George Washington himself ordered numerous hangings for those convicted of capital court martial offenses during the Revolutionary War.  Perhaps the most famous was the execution of the much-admired British officer, Major Andre, who was convicted of the capital offense of spying in connection with the treason of Benedict Arnold.  If hanging was good enough for Major Andre, who faced the gallows with commendable sang froid, it is certainly good enough for the likes of murderous brutes like Clayton Lockett.