Published on May 10, 2019.
Using the criticism of Mio Sugita’s remarks on LGBT issues and the calls for her resignation as its point of departure, this essay argues that speech must be answered with speech, and that Article 24 of the Constitution of Japan defines marriage as being based on “the mutual consent of both sexes.”
It insists that if same-sex marriage is to be established socially and legally, constitutional revision must first be advocated openly and directly.

2019-05-10
There, does it not say “both sexes,” and “only,” and “husband and wife”? A union not of both sexes but of the same sex is a private act wholly unrelated to the Constitution.
This chapter is one that Kuwako, who serves as an anchor on NHK watch9, or claims to, and Arima and Ōkoshi, who presumably manipulate her like a puppet, must read with their eyes wide open.
If one is to style oneself an anchor and speak about Japan, the world, politics, diplomacy, etc., then at the very least one must have studied this much, or one is not worth talking about at all.
The spectacle of a lowest-grade “sanctimonious” human being, lacking the learning of someone like Kaji Hiroto, undertaking no training and no verification, and merely prattling pseudo-moralism while serving as the anchor of NHK’s flagship news program… is an outrage that fears not even God.
If one says it is merely a mode peculiar to sufferers of the left-wing infantile disease, that would be the end of it.
But the matter concerns… the flagship news program of Japan’s state broadcaster, and therefore it cannot be disposed of with cynical laughter or a shrug.
Why? Because it concerns the question of just what level of intellect and intelligence we, the Japanese people, possess.
The Fascism That Forces Representative Sugita to Resign.
This old man is glib of tongue, yet unsteady on his feet these days.
After breakfast, with nowhere in particular to go.
In the end, as usual, I idly skimmed newspapers and magazines here and there.
Among those articles, the center of discussion was a statement by Mio Sugita, Liberal Democratic Party member of the House of Representatives.
It was something she had contributed to the August 2018 issue of Shincho 45.
The portion of that article that was taken up had the following purport.
There are LGBT people in the world.
LGBT, it is said, is an abbreviation in which L stands for lesbian, G for gay, B for bisexual, meaning one who feels sexual attraction toward both men and women, and T for transgender, meaning that sexual consciousness is inconsistent between the brain and behavior.
At any rate, it refers to people who possess sexual feelings different from those of ordinary people.
As for the details, this old man does not understand them well.
Now then, Representative Sugita says that LGBT has no connection with the birth of children, and from that argues, “They do not produce children, that is, they have no ‘productivity.’”
Is that assertion not exactly correct?
Of course, it seems to this old man that, in the case of B, if it becomes a relationship between a man and a woman, the birth of a child is possible, so perhaps that would be an exception.
Granting that as a supplement, Representative Sugita’s assertion is exactly right.
If there is an opposing opinion to this claim, then one need only present a forthright rebuttal.
And yet, astonishingly, it is reported that, as soon as critical commentary against Sugita appeared, many people gathered in front of the headquarters of the Liberal Democratic Party to which she belongs, protested, and in the end demanded that she resign her Diet seat.
To demand a Diet member’s resignation—this is abusive language.
Quite apart from whether Representative Sugita committed a legal or moral scandal, by what grounds or reasons can one demand resignation over an argument she stated openly and squarely?
If one attempts to force this through, it is a denial of freedom of speech, a refusal to recognize any opinion but one’s own—and that is precisely the fascism, indeed even the Nazism, that the demonstrators themselves shout about.
Meet speech with speech.
To begin with, if one reads Sugita’s remarks, first, she states in general terms, “For example,… there is… a just cause for using tax money for infertility treatment,” and then says, “But can support really be obtained” for using tax money for LGBT couples?
In other words, she is stating a fact, and it is not a discriminatory statement.
Next, second, she says, “They do not produce children,” and immediately after that, says, “In other words, they have no ‘productivity.’”
In context, the meaning of this word “productivity” is not the economic meaning of “production,” which is achieved through nature, labor, and capital, but rather the meaning of “the possibility of giving birth.”
This word “productivity” is, literally, a compound formed according to the method of putting together two words of the same meaning—“to beget” and “to give birth”—in order to fix the meaning through deliberate parallelism.
And that point is connected by the word “in other words,” which draws out a conclusion.
“They do not produce children,” in other words, “if one puts it in the style of such parallel wording, there is no productivity,” is no more than a tautological repetition of the same meaning.
Where, then, can this be called a discriminatory statement?
Furthermore, the life of LGBT persons is, after all, merely cohabitation, and decidedly not marriage.
The basis for that lies in the Constitution of Japan.
That is to say, Article 24 states: “Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained on the basis that husband and wife have equal rights…”
There, does it not say “both sexes,” and “only,” and “husband and wife”?
A union not of both sexes but of the same sex is a private act wholly unrelated to the Constitution.
This old man once discussed that matter before.
Please see page 159, where it is clearly stated in my previous book A Biographical Dictionary of Media Hypocrites.
If LGBT is to be established socially and legally as marriage, there is no way other than to amend Article 24 of the Constitution of Japan.
Why is that not being openly and squarely asserted?
Are they incapable of anything other than putting on the gaudy spectacle of threatening demonstrations?
As the ancients said, if one destroys private feeling by means of the public, that is fairness, then the people will surely gather in trust.
If one destroys the private by means of the public, the people will surely gather in trust.
The Book of Documents, “Zhouguan.”