"Contraception" is Murder, October 2, 11-15, 2013

 

formerly, Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp

(stop killing young  people)

 

October 2, 2013,  Vol. 11   No. 15

PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603

Phone, 484-706-4375

Email, johndunk@ptd.net

Web, skyp1.blogspot.com

Circulation, 203

Editor, John Dunkle

 

  “Contraception” is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month.  If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you yet for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go to the website.  Emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFCs, two grand for others.

 

  I think we can all agree there is nothing peaceful, nonviolent, or prolife about letting innocent children be killed. So I believe we should examine every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect children from being tortured to death. I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful and from those who defend them. I’d also like to hear from those who oppose the prolife use of force and call it violence.

 

Prisoners  For  Christ: 

 

1.         Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180,  FCI, PO Box 1500, El Reno, OK 73036

2.         Griffin, Michael 310249, BRCF, 5914 Jeff Atles Rd., Milton, FL 32583-00000

3.         Grady, Francis 11656-089, USP Terre Haute, PO Box 33, Terre Haute, IN 47808

4.         Holt, Gregory 129616   Varner Supermax, PO Box 600, Grady, AR 71644-0600    

5.         Kopp, James 11761-055,  USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, Waymart, PA 18472 

6.         Roeder, Scott 65192  PO Box 2, Lansing, Kansas 66043

7.         Rogers, Bobby Joe 21292-017, USP Beaumont,  PO Box 26030, Beaumont, TX 77720

8.         Rudolph, Eric 18282-058  US Pen. Max,  Box 8500, Florence  CO 81226-8500

9.         Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A,  P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093   

10.       Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, USP, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg  PA 17837

 

 

 

  Here’s the eighth post, and the conclusion, of Eric Rudolph’s Melvin and Maude.  If you want to read the whole novella, start with the July 2 issue of this newsletter.  Then continue in the subsequent issues except for August 3 and September 3.  Again, MV is Mr. Veracitino and DC is Doctor Canard.

 

 MV:  Excuse me Doctor, but isn’t marriage about procreation?  While there may be other goods associated with marriage – love, care-giving – it’s about making and raising babies, isn’t it?  The fact is sex between men and women regularly produces children.  As children cannot care for themselves, the best place for them is with their biological parents.  Society therefore, has an interest in maintaining strong marriage laws to ensure that parents stick around to raise their own offspring.  Absent a strong marriage culture, the state itself would be forced to care for a lot more unwanted and abandoned children, with worse outcomes all around.

  The institution of marriage has always been about regulating sex and child care, not love or pair-bonding, which tend to wax and wane during any long-term relationship.  It’s mating which gives marriage its orientation towards children.  An infertile heterosexual couple can mate even if it cannot conceive.  But a same-sex couple literally cannot mate.  A man and a woman who mate biologically may or may not conceive, depending on factors beyond their control.  But a same-sex couple cannot unite biologically, cannot for a marital union.  “Gay marriage” is therefore an oxymoron.

  Comparing infertile heterosexual couples to same-sex couples was a case of apples and oranges.  Imagine the problem of using fertility as a criterion for obtaining a marriage license.  The government would have an impossible task devising tests designed to week out those applicants who were certain not to be able to have children.  Some couples who think themselves to be infertile later end u having a houseful of kids.  Other couples who resolve never to have children later change their minds.  Nobody believes that a couple should have to convince the government that they will always love and care for one another before receiving a marriage license.  That doesn’t mean that marriage has nothing to do with love and care-givi8ng.  Marriage most certainly advances the goods of love and care-giving; but if sex didn’t make babies there would be no reason for the institution of marriage.  If love and care-giving were the primary purpose of marriage, then the state would have no reason to exclude any type of consensual relationship from marriage.

 

DC:  My point exactly!  Once society let same-sex couples marry, it has no grounds to exclude any consensual relationship from marriage.

 

MV:  Such as Melvin the man-donkey and his lover Maude?

 

DC: Precisely.  The biological argument against same-sex marriage, which you so eloquently reiterated, was really a last-ditch effort in a lost cause.  Marriage was never just about biology, Mr. Veracitino; it was about morality.  For a thousand years marriage was the model lifestyle that people were expected to follow.  Except for a minority of religious celibates, every man and woman was expected to find a mate and marry.  In keeping with natural law, marriage was heterosexual, monogamous, and indissoluble.  It was a socially approved relationship, part of God’s plan for man and woman, and children were its crowning glory.  “Therefore  man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” says the Book of Genesis.  Other lifestyles were “inferior.”  Other forms of sexuality – fornication, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, bestiality – were “immoral,” “sinful,” and “illegal.”  From this perspective, the very idea of allowing homosexuals to marry was subversive of the entire moral order.  Homosexuals were excluded  from marriage not because they couldn’t procreate but because homosexual acts were considered to be “intrinsically disordered.”

  It took a century of struggle to finally topple this moral pyramid.  Slowly but surely the sexual revolution eroded the moral foundations  of patriarchal marriage.  In the 1940s and 1950s no-fault divorce and the elimination of coverture reduced marriage to a personal relationship between autonomous individuals.  Divorce and single-parent families became common and acceptable.   The widespread availability of legal contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s freed women to have sex whenever and with whomever they wanted without fear of pregnancy.  Cohabitation became the norm among young couples.  Adultery, fornication and homosexuality were decriminalized, and then normalized.  Hollywood played the key role in this revolution.  Its films liberalized attitudes about sex. By the late 1980s people began to think  in terms of “alternative lifestyles,” with homosexuality, wife-swapping, and sadomasachism treated as legitimate alternatives to marriage.  When heterosexual monogamous marriage became just another lifestyle choice, the advocates of traditional marriage had no moral ground to stand on.

  Progressives still faced an uphill battle to enact same-sex marriage laws, though.  In 1996 only twenty-0seven percent of Americans supported same-sex marriage.  Hollywood began serving the American people  a steady diet of gay-friendly movies and programs, resulting in one of the most dramatic shifts of public opinion in history.  By 2012 over fifty percent of the population favored allowing homosexuals to marry.

  Unfortunately only a handful of states legalized same-sex marriage.  The forces of hate fought back with unexpected zeal:  passing laws,. enacting amendments, holding referendums – the most famous being California’s Proposition 8, which wrote into the state constitution that “marriage was between a man and a woman.”

  Several gay couples challenged Proposition 8, claiming that it violated their due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.  The case was argued before Judge Vaughn Walker in 2010, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

  Defending Proposition 8, California’s attorney general gave what is perhaps the most pathetic performances  in the annals of jurisprudence.  The poor man basically conceded the plaintiff’s cause.  He stipulated that “homosexuality” is a normal expression of sexuality and that it is not in any way a form of pathology.  He accepted without question Judge Walker’s “finding of fact,” which was based on a statement put out by the American Psychological Association in 2005: “Children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted.  The APA statement had been based on over fifty-nine studies.  The state’s attorney general challenged none of them.

  With the moral foundations of traditional marriage in ruins, all he had left was crude biology.   His only expert, a Mr. Blakenthorn, argues that marriage is inherently  about procreation, therefore, it should be preserved to heterosexual couples.  Homosexuals, although perfectly normal and equal to heterosexuals in every other respect, cannot procreate so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

 

MV:  I’ve read the Parry case, and it seems pretty obvious to me  that the state’s attorney general made no effort to defend Proposition 8  because he personally sympathized  with those who opposed it.  He basically sabotaged his own case.   Is that your opinion as well?

 

DC:  The case was decided on its merits.

 

MV:  By “merits” you can’t possibly mean the due process and equal protection claims.  The idea that the Framers of the “Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments had in mind same-sex marriage when they wrote those amendments is absurd.

 

DC:  You and I both know that the Constitution means whatever the latest federal judge says it means.

 

MV:  By “merits” do you mean plaintiff’s lineup of experts and Jude Walker subsequent “finding of fact,” specifically those APA studies?

 

DC:  Yes.

 

MV:  A couple of years after the trial an academic journal called Social Science Research published two papers which cast serious doubt on the APA’s assertion that children raised by homosexual couples do just as well as children raised by heterosexual couples.  Are you familiar with those two papers?

 

DC:  Vaguely.

 

MV:  I’ll refresh your memory.  Loren Marks of Louisiana State University examined those fifty-nine studies cited by the APA and found that three-fourths of them were “based on small, non-representative, convenience samples of fewer than a hundred participants.”  Marks concluded that the fifty-nine studies lacked scientific methodology.”  Not one of the fifty-nine studies referred to . . . compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children.”

  Another sociologist, Mark Regnerus  of the University of Texas set out to find what the APA’s fifty-nine studies failed to find.  Using children of intact traditional heterosexual families as a control group, he examined a large sample of young adults, looking at outcomes like rates of criminality, suicide, drug use, sexual molestation and so forth.  W
hat he discovered directly contradicted the APA’s 2005 statement.  Children of lesbian mothers were four times more likely to end up  on welfare than those raised by traditional families.  They were also the group with the lowest level of education and the most likely to be unemployed.  Children raised my lesbian mothers were eleven times more likely to report being sexually molested than children raised by biological parents.  This rate was four times higher than the next most vulnerable group: children raised in stepfamilies.  Children with fathers involved in same-sex relationships were the most likely to be involved in crime.  ; children of lesbian mothers were second most likely.  Children of gay and lesbian parents grew up to have the highest rates of depression and the highest rates of STDs.  And on and on, very depressing statistics, for the advocates of alternative lifestyles.  What do you think, Doctor?

 

  While Mr. Veracitino was rattling off statistics, Professor Canard was becoming visibly irritated.  He squirmed in his seat, barely able to contain himself. Finally he burst.

 

DC:  Fascist lies!

 

MV:  I see you disagree with Mark’s and Regnerus’s findings.

 

DC:  Hate speech!

 

MV: Both studies were peer reviewed and found to have been conducted using the best methods available. They hardly qualify as “hate speech.”  Can you point to any factual problems with the two studies, any biases?

 

Mr. Sheister:  Objection your Honor.  The state’s attorney is badgering the witness.

 

Judge Stamp:  Sustained, Mr. Veracitino, you are warned not to badger the witness.

 

MV:  But your honor . . .

 

Judge Stamp:  And let the record reflect that Perry v. Schwarzenegger is good law and was decided on sound scientific evidence.  Also, this court recognizes that the plaintiff, Melvin Allen White, is in face a donkey.  Mr. Veracitino, in referring to the plaintiff you will no longer use the term “man-donkey.”

 

MV:  How about “jackass”?

Judge Stamp:  You’ve been warned.

 

MV:  All right Doctor, you were saying that traditional marriage was never about procreation; it was the “model lifestyle” and stood as the cornerstone of society’s moral pyramid.  Sex outside of marriage was immoral; other lifestyles were inferior.  What did the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage have to do with all this?

 

DC:  The advocates of same-sex marriage were not looking for membership in the baby-making club.  Nor did the case for gay marriage hinge upon whether homosexual couples could care for children as well as biological parents.  It was about moral equality; it has always been about moral equality.  Judge Walker put it succinctly in his historic ruling:  “Proposition 8 [traditional marriage] was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.  Whether this belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians, or simply a belief that a  relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better  that a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate . . .

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.  Indeed the evidence shows that Proposition  8 does not hinge more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.

 

MV:  So Perry demolished  the moral claims of marriage that some sex acts are good and other sex acts are bad, some lifestyles are superior and other lifestyles inferior?

 

DC:  Yes.  Judge Walker ruled that all sex is created equal, one variety no better than another; all lifestyles are created equal, one variety no better than another.  After Perry society came to accept same-sex marriage,  and when it did it had no grounds to exclude any kind of relationship from marriage.  The edifice of patriarchal marriage lay in ruins.

 

MV:  Am I right in saying that in your perfect world there would be no marriage or family?

 

DC:  Most experts agree that the world would be a better place without those patriarchal institutions.

 

MV:  Experts like B. F. Skinner, who wanted to replace “the family, not only as an economic unit . . . but as a social and psychological unit as well”?

 

DC:  Yes.

 

MV:  B. F. Skinner wasn’t some hair-brained radical, was  he, Doctor?

 

DC:  Certainly not.  He was one of the founders of behaviorism, which is the principal school of psychology today.

 

MV:  Prominent feminist Kate Millet was another one who thought “the care of children, even from the period when their cognitive powers first emerge, is infinitely better left to the  best trained practioners of both sexes who care for children as a vocation . . . The family, as that term is precisely understood, must go.  In view of the institution’s history, this is a kind fate.”

 

DC :  Marriage and family must eventually give way to progress.

 

MV:  Doctor, I’m sure you are familiar with the horrific history of state-run orphanages and foster care, the negative impact of children raised in these institutions is well documented.  Why would anyone want to get rid of the two-parent family?

 

DC:  The negative outcomes associated with state-run orphanages and foster care are largely  the legacy of living in a capitalistic society.  In a truly just society child care will be far superior to the traditional family.

 

MV:  By “just society” do you mean a socialist society?

 

DC:  I mean a society where resources are shared equally.

 

MV:  Therefore, the ultimate goal of the LGBTT movement is the abolition of marriage, as it has been traditionally defined?

 

DC:  We want marriage to evolve.

 

MV:  “Evolve,” “abolish,” isn’t that a matter of semantics?

 

DC:  No.

 

MV:  When something was      formerly defined as having one set of characteristics and now it has a    completely different set of characteristics – hasn’t the definition changed?

 

DC:  Definitions are relative; they have whatever meaning we want them to have. I believe we already covered this in our little discussion of the modern condition and the meaningless of life.

 

MV:  You mean like two plus two equals five, war is peace?

 

Judge Stamp:  Don’t harass the witness.

 

MV:  Let me rephrase the question:  Once upon a time, marriage was defined as heterosexual, monogamous, procreative, and indissoluble; today marriage is defined as a consensual relationship between whatever:  men with men, women with women, brothers with sisters, and if the plaintiffs are successful, men with donkeys – excuse me your Honor, donkeys with donkeys.  But don’t you see the difference?

 

DC:  No, I don’t.  Marriage has merely evolved to become more inclusive.

 

MV:  If the term “marriage” can mean anything, it means nothing.

 

DC:  I disagree.  In the past “marriage” meant exclusivity and oppression; today it means equality and freedom.

 

MV:  Allow me to go back to something you said earlier.  You claimed that the LGBTT movement is an outgrowth of the sexual revolution, which in turn is part of the larger socialist-anarchist movement.  Is that correct?

 

DC:  Yes.

 

MV:  Fourier, Proudhon, Marx, and Engels – all the founding fathers of the socialist-anarchist movement believed that monogamous marriage was the model for the entire class system. All of them preached free love and declared that the ultimate goal of the revolution was to abolish traditional marriage and family.  They felt competent of accomplishing this goal soon after overthrowing the bourgeois governments of

Europe.  Thus eliminating the seed kernel of the class system, mankind would no longer be divided  into separate families, classes, nations, and religions.  The collective would become the new family, and humanity would get back to that lovely socialist Garden of Eden that Engels wrote about in his book Origins.  Am I right so far?

 

DC:  Essentially.

 

MV:  Most people mistakenly believe  that the hippies of the 1960s were the first to experiment  with free love and communes, but they were actually late comers to these ideas, weren’t they?  Early in the twentieth century Vladimir Lenin tried to actualize the dream of free love and the collective family soon after his Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar.  The Soviet experiment was the first to be attempted on such a large scale.  First, Lenin issued decrees that annulled traditional marriages.  The old Czarist statutes that h ad criminalized homosexuality, adultery, and incest were discarded.  Open marriage – free love – was recognized in 1927.  In 1921 the Soviet Union became the first nation to legalize abortion.  State-run birth control clinics and collective nurseries were established.  Progressive teachers like Vera Schmidt set up schools and designed curriculum to educate the next generation without “sexual guile” and inhibitions, preparing them for the free love lifestyle of the future.  But their experiment failed.

  As it turned out, only a few libertines and intellectuals practiced free love.  Most people, even Party members, preferred monogamy and traditional marriage, despite the ban on such unions.  Mothers decided to stay home with their kids rather than deposit them in a collective nursery.  Consequently the nurseries closed down.  Vera Schmidt’s progressive school was also forced to shutter its doors after Stalin came to power.  Never one to let Marxist theory get in the way of practical policy, Stalin put an end to Lenin’s little free love experiment.

 

  DC:  The Soviets failed because they went too far too fast.  The family has been around for thousands of years; getting rid of it in one decade simply wasn’t possible. Leon Trotsky admitted as much when he sais, “You cannot abolish the family, you must replace it.”

 

MV:  Explain this if you will.

 

DC:  The Soviets attempted to impose socialism from the top down.  But as Greg Lucas later postulated in his book History and Class Consciousness (1923),  the superstructure of capitalistic society rests upon an accepted cultural-moral-religious worldview that has taken centuries to evolve. It cannot be dismantled overnight. 

 

MV:  In other words, the Soviet goal of abolishing marriage and family wasn’t the problem, the problem was the way they went about it?

 

DC:  Heterosexist patriarchal polities can’t be eliminated without significant bourgeois reaction.

 

MV:  I’ll taker that as a “yes.”  Isn’t it true, Doctor, that after those early failures in the Soviet Union the tactics of socialism changed?

 

DC:  Dialectical materialism is the story of change.

 

MV:  I’ll take that as a “yes” as well.  Socialism in fact split into two basic groups: revolutionary socialists and democratic socialists.  Outside the West revolutionary socialists such as Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung  would keep the militant tradition and found regimes  where party elites imposed socialism from the top down through terror, secrecy, and propaganda.  Meanwhile in

Western Europe and America , democratic socialists would work from within bourgeois society and impose socialism at the point of a gun, as the Soviets were attempting with disastrous results, the neo-Marxist  set out to infiltrate the institutions of Western society – especially those responsible for shaping popular opinion – and gradually erode its ideological foundations.  The radical feminists, the leaders of the New Left, and the LGBTT ideologues adopted the categories developed by Neo-Marxist intellectuals like William Reich and the Frankfort School.  Is this correct?

 

DC:  So what’s your point, that the Sexual revolution in America has its origins in the socialist movement?  McCarthyism went out of style years ago.

 

MV:  My point is that even though the tactics of socialism have changed, the goals remain the same.  So why won’t you just admit that you and the LGBTT movement want to abolish marriage.

 

DC:  Because “evolve” sounds much nicer.

 

MV:  You’re right, shooting people and tossing them into the Gulag was never very “nice,” was it.  Infiltrating bourgeois society’s universities, news rooms, and film studios, and gradually dismantling its moral worldview has proven more effective and “nicer” too.  Rather than trying to abolish the family outright, you have to set about to gradually replace it  

.

DC:  Your questions are cute, Mr. Veracitino, but a title old fashioned.  Whatever the court decides here today is merely a formality because our resolution has already succeeded.  Take a look around you: free love has overthrown the moral claims of heterosexual monogamy.  Today, no sexual group can claim the moral high ground.  Heterosexuals and homosexuals,  transsexuals and transvestites, tops and bottoms, sadomasochists and drag queens enjoy equal respect and freedom.  The modern family has become little more than a subsidiary of the state.  From pre-school to college, every child growing up today  is educated in a government school by government teachers.  With home schooling and parochial schooling outlawed by the Child Protection Act of 2022, the child receives only a government approved progressive education.  Who are the child’s role models?  Hollywood actors and pop singers, all of whom expose approved progressive opinions, have replaced parents as role models.  Where are the individual’s true loyalties?  Certainly not with his biological family.  From cradle to grave the individual’s most vital relationship  is now with the collective.  Unemployment insurance supports her when she is out of work, food stamps heed him when he is  hungry, Obamacare nurses her when she is sick , and  social security takes hi of him in old age.  For all intents and purposes, traditional marriage and family have been consigned to the history books [-- and good riddance.

 

MV:  I do look around me, Doctor, and I see a wasteland:  declining birth rates, skyrocketing rates of crime and delinquency, a generation of progressives on Prozac, a welfare state that no longer has the tax base to support its entitlements.  Once a colossus that bestrode the world, America today is a morally and financially bankrupt banana republic..  That what I see..  The reason we got here is because of men and women like you, Doctor.  You got a ton of academic degrees but not one ounce of common sense.  Peel back the layers of your “modern,” “progressive” ideology and it’s easy to see what it really is: insanity.  But you are right though, your revolution has succeeded.   And so much the worse for the future.  No doubt you have a different version of the future, probably still dreaming of that “radiant tomorrow” that Marx and Engels described so many years ago.

 

DC:  I do have a different vision of the future.  To paraphrase another great American, I have a dream that someday this nation   will stand up and live out the new meaning of its creed – “all carbon-p0based life forms are evolved equals.”  I have a dream that someday the sons of homo sapiens and the foals of donkeys will lie down together in the green pastures of specieshood.  I have a dream that my in vitro surrogated children will one day live  in a nation where they will not be judged by their anatomy  but by the content of their psychosexual perception.  When we let freedom ring, when we let freedom ring from every village and every hamlet, from every borrow and every barnyard, we will be able to speed up that day when all carbon-based organisms, men and women, donkeys and dalmatians, crustaceans and cuticle fungus, will be able to join paws, claws, and tentacles in the words of the unspecies spiritual “Free love at last, free love at last, thank God almighty we have free love at last.”

 

  With the trial concluded and the courtroom cleared, Judge Ruben Stamp retired to his chambers and locked the door behind him.  He was deeply troubled, not about the trial for he already knew how he would rule.   He had to come down on the right side of history and rule in favor of Melvin and Maude’s right to marry.   No, it was something else that troubled Judge Stamp.

  For years Ruben Stamp had been hiding a secret.  When he was alone on his ranch with his donkeys, he could be himself.  But in public he wore a mask.  He was sick of hiding.  Watching Melvin and Maude, the courageous young lovers, wakened the urge to open up the barn door and come out.  You see, like Melvin White, Judge Stamp was a jackass trapped inside the body of a man.  Hee-Haw.

 

 

  All quotes and many other statements in  Melvin and Maude are documented.  End notes are available upon request.

  I loved it, with one quibble -- I wish Eric had used different names for his characters to make me figure out right from wrong by myself.

  In the November 1 issue of this newsletter, I will post comments I’ve received so far.  If you have any, get ‘em in quick.

  ______________________________

  --------------------------------------------------

 

  For back issues of this newsletter go to skyp1.blogspot.com

  ----------------------------------------------------

 

To send money to the federal Prisoners, those with eight digits after their names, make out a postal money order to the Prisoner’s name and number. Then send it to Federal Bureau of Prisons,  PO Box 474701,  Des Moines, IA 50947-0001.

 

  Ask the non-feds how they may receive money – check, money order, etc. It varies by state.

  ----------------------------------------------------

 

  Receipt of this excellent missive notwithstanding, if you wish to be excluded from such blessings in the future, simply advise me.