Japan has fallen. Weep for her!
What is sad is not just that Japan fell, but the manner of her descent was brutal, matching ours in the States. Which, as we’ll see, is no coincidence.
Japan’s constitution defines marriage as one between “both sexes”.
But a Sapporo court ruled that this denied the couples constitutionally-guaranteed equality, in what is seen as a symbolic victory for LGBTQ activists.
Japan is the only country in the G7 group of developed nations that does not allow same-sex marriage.
Many had hoped all Asian countries would remain based, retaining threads of the natural order, at least because of their inclination to dislike the United States and having not fallen prey to Western Enlightenment puritanism. But this hope has been dashed.
Even China, for instance, long ago stopped listing desire for sodomy as a mental illness. They haven’t bent to the winds as Japan has done. Perhaps they will see the debilitating effects of globohomo and reject new western “advances” along these lines given they are much bolder in disagreeing with the US.
We still haven’t got to the specific way Japan fell, which I don’t want to bury, but the American and Western cultural influence is an important part of this, even its direct cause.
The nearest analog to Japan is Taiwan, another Asian country that was, at one time anyway, influenced (a nice word) by Japan, and is still, like Japan, under the “protection” of the US military. When China growling, neither country can afford to ignore US desires. Ahem.
A few years back, the Taiwan government called a vote asking whether gmarriage should be allowed, and whether globohomo should be taught in schools. The public overwhelming rejected these ideas, with more then two-thirds voting against them.
The government, then as now led by a confirmed bachelorette, examined the results and said, “We’re doing it anyway.” Doubtless Taiwan’s close ties to the US, and it’s official policy of advancing globohomo, had something to do with rejecting the will of its own people. Indeed, the US Military is now tasked with promoting (and enforcing?) worldwide perversion.
Some of you will remember Japan’s constitution was largely the creation of Americans, written over a hasty week after Japan’s first post-war attempt at rewriting its constitution was rejected by MacArthur. MacArthur’s loyal staff shared their chief’s political views, or at least knew how to take orders.
It was MacArthur’s idea to “empower” women, give them “rights”, and encourage them to participate in politics. The reason he did this was to soften the militaristic mindset of the country, to curtail the Japanese desire for conquest. In this, it has to be admitted, he succeeded far beyond his desires.
In his favor, MacArthur was able to forestall and even block the State Department’s wilder forays into enlightenment. It’s my counterfactual guess that if MacArthur could see what he wrought, he would have been more careful. This was one of those moments in history which we can only look back on and sigh.
Ignore all that. Here is the legal argument used to kill Reality.
The Japanese constitution specifies, in cold hard writing, that marriage shall be based in “mutual consent between both sexes”. This was put there not because MacArthur foresaw globohomo, but because he was against the sort of arranged marriages in which the weaker of the two sexes had no say. You’ll note, if not in a hurry, this also specifies marriage as only two, and not more, or even one.
The government, defending Reality—how earnestly I don’t know; perhaps a Japanese reader can inform us—said that the two-sexes clause meant that gmarriage wasn’t “foreseen”, and is therefore impossible. In English, this is pathetic and weak. The real argument is that gmarriage is an impossibility, well recognized by the constitution. Whether this comes across in the Japanese, again, I don’t know.
Sodomy supporters countered with the Jesus-didn’t-say-it-therefore-go-for-it argument, which as you know is popular with the debased. They said “there is nothing in the constitution that explicitly prohibits gay marriage.” Therefore, the rights of the based will be removed. They will now be forced to join in the lie, or pay the price.
Plus, there is something in the constitution that says no to gmarriage. It says “mutual consent between both sexes”.
Allowing the argument “It doesn’t specifically say no” opens the possibility for endless progressive horrors. The constitution didn’t specifically kids couldn’t be taken from their parents. The constitution didn’t specifically say the government could torture those who disagree.
And so on.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here