Posted on 09/05/2014 12:59:42 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
.... But Thursday’s ruling by 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, which struck down Indiana’s and Wisconsin’s gay marriage bans, is a different beast altogether. In his opinion, Posner does not sound like a man aiming to have his words etched in the history books or praised by future generations. Rather, he sounds like a man who has listened to all the arguments against gay marriage, analyzed them cautiously and thoroughly, and found himself absolutely disgusted by their sophistry and rank bigotry. The opinion is a masterpiece of wit and logic that doesn’t call attention to—indeed, doesn’t seem to care about—its own brilliance. Posner is not writing for Justice Anthony Kennedy, or for judges of the future, or even for gay people of the present. He is writing, very clearly, for himself.
~snip~
[The] government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of government encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents—model citizens really—so have no need for marriage.
~snip~
Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
During oral arguments, Wisconsin's inspector general cited tradition as a reason for maintaining the ban, prompting Posner to note that: "It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry – a tradition that got swept away." Posner said that the same-sex marriage bans were both "a tradition of hate" and "savage discrimination".[26]
Although Greece and Rome are often pointed to as some sort of bastion of homosexual tolerance, in many ways they were harsher on open displays of homosexuality than any civilization today. To some degree limited homosexuality was tolerated among the ruling class, mainly because they held all the cards and could pretty much get away with anything they wanted, as long as they kept it out of public view. But it was never considered acceptable among the other classes. Also some of the modern confusion comes because Greece and Rome had very different definition of what they would consider "homosexual behavior", for instance, (not to be to graphic) but two male friends giving each other...manual stimulation... was just considered normal "guy" behavior, not much different than two male friends watching the football game together today. However any sort of behavior that included penetration was considered a huge no-no and looked down upon.
Every time one of these federal judges decides in favor a gay marriage, Republicans in the House need to file for his impeachment.
The sophistry comes when anyone argues that two men buggering each other is the biological — and moral — equivalent of heterosexual intercourse.
And the bigotry is revealed in the homo lobby’s patient tolerance of Christian ideas.
So spare us your santimonious posturing, Judge.
I don’t tend to look at judges with a libertarian-bent who were nominated by Ronald Reagan as “thugs,” but if that’s what makes your knee jerk, go for it.
Opinions are like @$$holes. Everyone has one. Most states who have put gay 'marriage' on the ballot has shown that well over a majority do NOT approve of queer or lesbian unions.
I don’t tend to look at judges with a libertarian-bent who were nominated by Ronald Reagan as “thugs,” but if that’s what makes your knee jerk, go for it.
_________________________________
You think this ruling was correct, then?
Go ahead and tell us why. Explain why Free Republic has a “tradition of hate” and is “savagely discriminating” against queers who want to get married.
Or perhaps you like this bent libertarian because of his pro-abortion ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
Whatever it is that turns you on here about Judge POSner, please feel free to share.
Posner is the sophist, and one that likes to kiss trendy butt. By incorporating all that extra-legal social science mumbo jumbo and personal observations into his jurisprudence he is simply showing his ignorance of the rule of law and its purpose.
Here’s the thing. I’d rather let Levin digest Posner’s opinion, and see what he has to say about it first. That’s what intelligent legal minds do. Other people run to Wikipedia.
Since when is it “libertarian” to join the “me too!” jurisprudence of the marriage redefiners and act in a way that is consistent with a bloated view of government (in this case the Judicial branch of the government)?
I skimmed Posner’s opinion—looks like he thinks that the lawyers for the anti-homo marriage side were ill-prepared.
so?
Great question to direct to Richard Posner.
so what?
The Constitution is a dead letter; window dressing kept around for the sake of tradition and appearances as was the Roman Senate in the Imperial era. As a practical matter, the federal government has grown so large and so pervasive into every facet of American life that it no longer recognizes any restraint in its power over the states or the people. There is no bigger gorilla to act as a check on that power.
It has also become so large and massive that it has in effect fragmented into a feudal-like collection of independent political power units. None of those bureaucratic entities recognize any checks and balances on their power as against each other. They certainly have no accountability to anyone, not even Congress. It has also not escaped my notice that every one of those units, like feudal duchies, has its own army.
The thing is, Posner is THE most respected Judge in the U.S. and SCOTUS will put a LOT of stock in what he says. That is NOT a good thing.
So?, as in: so what if Posner thought they were unprepared and so what if even if they were. Does not change the legal issues ...
Not really. Just because he comes down on my side sometimes does not mean I respect his legal mind or his form of jurisprudence. I think he misses the point.
Ok, so you think that a judge should decide the issue before oral argument. That’s cool, it places you in the “legal realism” camp. Libs love it.
These judges should be impeached. Their rulings on the federal level are unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.