The following comes from a Sept. 10 posting by Michael Cook on Conjugality, a blog on Mercator.net.
Last week the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a district-court ruling that had struck down same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin. Judge Richard Posner wrote the decision, a brilliant piece of rhetoric which was studded with sparkling one-liners and dripping with sarcasm. “Hero Federal Appeals Judge Burns Down the Case Against Gay Marriage” was the headline in Gawker, a widely-read website. “A masterpiece of wit and logic,” was the verdict of Slate’s columnist.
Since the 75-year-old Posner is the most-cited legal scholar of the 20th Century and one of America’s leading public intellectuals, his views are bound to be influential as same-sex marriage heads for the Supreme Court.
But stripped of their sequinned garments Posner’s views are not as muscle-bound as they first appear.
His strength is identifying absurd inconsistencies in arguments and using them to pry open the door for new interpretations. For instance, he points out that Indiana bans marriages of first cousins until they are well past the age of procreation at 65. “Elderly first cousins are permitted to marry because they can’t produce children; homosexuals are forbidden to marry because they can’t produce children,” he writes.
There are many entertaining Gotcha moments in his decision, too many, in fact, for they distract readers from his weakness on the fundamentals. His case rests on three legs, all heavily reliant on social science scholarship.
First, he argues that homosexual orientation is genetic, an immutable and innate characteristic rather than a choice. To support this he cites a 2008 brochure from the American Psychological Association – not exactly the summit of genetic scholarship, although admittedly, it is the APA’s official view. However, no genetic cause has yet been identified; homosexuality’s origin is still an open question.
Besides, if homosexuality is genetic, it should have disappeared according to evolutionary theory, as homosexuals do not produce offspring. Posner acknowledges that this is a problem, but says that the “kin selection hypothesis” shows that homosexuality is compatible with evolutionary theory. What he doesn’t say is that the kin selection hypothesis is so controversial that it has been criticized by the Harvard evolutionary biologist who popularized it in the first place, Edward O. Wilson. Whether this is true or false is a matter for the scientists to work out. But the genetic origin of homosexuality is unsettled and contestable. It is hardly a firm plank on which to base a revolution in US marriage law.
Second, he argues that same-sex marriage does no harm to the institution of marriage or to society at large. This is a claim which is impossible to prove in less than two generations. The precedents are not promising. The last revolution in marriage, no fault divorce, was described as a blessing in the 1960s. But after a half-century experiment, it has led to huge changes in family structure, legions of single mothers, violence against spouses, child welfare, a declining marriage rate and so on.
Posner seems quite impressed by a recent study which analysed whether marriage rates fell after Massachusetts permitted same-sex marriage. “Allowing same-sex marriage has no effect on the heterosexual marriage rate,” he concludes. So what? An snapshot of Massachusetts marriages from 2004 to 2010 says almost nothing about damage to the institution.
Third, Posner says that the welfare of children should be front and center of arguments about marriage. Since marriage is the best place to raise children, he argues, it is discriminatory to deny homosexual couples the right to raise their children within the framework of marriage.
But he only considers the material benefits of a hefty household income. The real question is whether a marriage with a mother and a father is the best place to raise children. Posner ignores almost completely the psychological effects on children of growing up in a heterosexual marriage, focused as he is on the rights of adults.
How could such a brilliant scholar offer such conventional arguments about social morality based on such weak evidence? The answer is that Posner does not believe in morality….
To read the entire story, click here.
A long time ago, I recall mothers saying, “My son is a lawyer– is that something to brag about?” Then, people would laugh!! Well, in other words—–are most lawyers honest– or immature and immoral charlatans, like Judge Posner?? Lawyers have an unfortunate reputation, historically, of being severely deficient in integrity and morality, and people who know this, laugh!! Judge Posner and people like him, do not serve God nor society– they are complete fools, who serve money, fame, and their own egos!!
@ Thomas Miles,
The true “perverts” are not on the right, but on the left: sodomites, though only 2% of the population, make up 33% of all child sex abusers. For your edification, read these:
http://www.tinyurl.com/10SodomiteMyths (see Myth No. 8)
Enjoy your day!
I do, every day, following God’s will and commandments. You should give it a try!
My God, You have given me a body to keep pure and clean and healthy for Your service and my eternal happiness. Forgive me for all my unfaithfulness in this great responsibility. Forgive me for every mean use which I have made of Your gifts in thought, word or deed since my rebirth as Your own adopted child in Baptism and my registration as a soldier of Jesus on the day of my Confirmation. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and give me a steadfast will that I may be a strength to others around me. Teach me to respect my body and the bodies of my fellow creatures. Help me to see the glory of perfect manhood In Jesus Christ and of perfect womanhood in Mary Immaculate. Inspire me with such love for the ideals for which our Savior lived and died that all my passions and energies will be caught up into the enthusiasm of His service, and evil things will lose their power. May my body be the servant of my soul, and may both body and soul be Your servants. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
“Never be cast down then, for one thing alone is fearful, that is sin.” St. John Chrysostom
“Thomas Miles” may be correct as to future holdings of federal and state courts as a matter of civil law. He is silent, however, and perhaps does not really care, that the Catholic Church will not change in its teachings as to the immutable evil of sodomy and of homosexual sex. Too bad that so many within the Church — such as Cardinal Dolan — no longer seem to hold faithfully to these teachings, and the Pope himself may permit some leeway in homosexual “relationships”. Unfortunate, but not without precedent regarding a number of moral issues. And, unfortunate to all homosexual sexualists who will never, ever, be accepted as “normal” regarding the Catholic Church. Wait, wait — but no one in the Church much cares about this anymore, right? So, in the end, what difference does it make (to paraphrase Hillary Clinton) if sodomites get the civil right to marry freely? The answer is that this will lead to many, many Catholics doubting their Faith, particularly when priests now say that it falls — like contraception — in the gray area of “conscience”. Well, if that is the case, then we have (at least) two Catholic Churches in store: Satan will be happy, as this has always been his plan (and remember, no man can match Angelic intelligence, which is still shared by Dark Angels). Judge Posner is, often, an intellectual poseur, notwithstanding his wit and writing skills. Happily, he is not speaking for the Church, although many in the Vatican likely share his views.
“Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor SODOMITES nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 COR 6:9-10
Unfortunately, it’s the 95% of the lawyers and judges that give the legal “profession” a bad name !!!
Homosexuality is NOT genetic.
It is a joke for ‘Psychologists’ to make up genetic research at any time. They are not even qualified to write medical prescriptions.
Psychology is not a Science.
To be classified as a “Science” the following 5 five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.
Same sex attraction is a temptation to sin.
Each person has a free will.
Sinful lifestyles are a free will choice whether it be: homosexual acts, fornicators, adulterers, or pornography users.
PEOPLE are RESPONSIBLE for their OWN ACTIONS.
On what is this judge’s alleged brilliance based on? Is it his IQ score done when he was 17? His college grades? His judicial decisions? His published work? And to whom is he being compared to? I’ve always believed Judge Bork to have been to had had one of the most brilliant political minds of the last century, but alas he was politically incorrect. This old mean-spirited yahoo might be thought brilliant by democrats, but then, so is Obama and Pelosi. Is it voted on like the people’s choice awards? Stooping to sarcasm and one-liners is not a sign of intelligence but a deeply insecure person. Also, brilliance is not wisdom and it doesn’t surprise me in the least that this is ‘da guy’ to quote in an age that legalizes murdering innocent babies, giving the green light to men marry men, for Pete’s sake, and through conceit and ignorance reinterpreting the Constitution as it was never intended and usurping laws passes by the Will,of the people. This geezer is symptomatic of what is so sick in our system of justice…smart? Or just an ass.
Excuse my typos..it’s what we poor ignorant masses do, right? Make mistakes! Once you get to be a judge you have someone else to cover for you…especially if you’re the “voice a da lef’ har har. Oops. I meant hear, hear!