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 ...
Did the ahole judge address ahole histology and public health implications?
Marriage is for producing children. Even societies like Greece and Rome, with all their homosexuality, used marriage for producing children and combining property.
“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.”
In other words, he’s yet another Liberal in love with his own opinions and utterly full of sh*t.
I think I understand.
Writers who agree with Mr. Stern offer “witty, Deeply Moral Masterpieces”
Writers who disagree with Mr. Stern offer nothing but “sophistry and rank bigotry”.
I’d suggest the judge take his children/grandchildren to the next gay rights march to show them the morality he supports.
Sophistry and rank bigotry were clearly evident, but most of it was right there in the opinion written by this judge.
There was a time when such hypocrisy would have been exposed for what it was, and the judge impeached in very short order.
Yet for the whole of human history up until about five years ago (maybe ten if you count Western Europe), those arguments were considered so obvious and common sense that very few even bothered to question them. But I'm sure Judge Posner and the rest of the left knows what's best for us better than all of the thousands of years of human knowledge that preceded them...
To be honest, the two snippets included above are examples of sophomoric, 2nd rate writing, at best.
when it comes to different tax rates or making distinctions between “big business” & “small business” for tax & regulation purposes——where are those same liberal voices calling for equality under the law?
Judge Posner’s opinions about the morality of banning or not banning gay marriage is completely irrelevant. A judge is to rule based on the law, not based on his own personal morality.
Homosexuality and most so-called “social issues” are not constitutionally any of the federal government’s business. They are states’ issues. Federal judges have no legitimate say-so in such matters. These matters are up to the people of each state to decide for themselves.
Posner is a legal giant, and his opinions carry weight . . . I’m off to read his opinion, and not what some limp-wrist at Slate has to write about it.
Funny. Richard Posner a "leftist."
Article IV, Section 4, guarantees republican government to the states. Numerous states properly amended their constitutions to define marriage as between man and woman. I'd guess these states comprise well over 200 million Americans.
For unelected, untouchable blackrobes to so easily slough off the will of so many Americans as nothing more than prejudiced assaults on defenseless homos is an incredibly serious matter.
In essence, the cumulative effect of these court decisions constitute repeal of free, republican state government.
It is a reminded that NOTHING is beyond the reach of our masters in Rome-on-the-Potomac.
But hey, just we'll just keep voting every two years and expect change.
No kids, no future.
It is as simple as that.
Reminded -> reminder
Oh, well then it TOTALLY worth it to piss away the will of the people and to allow a man or woman in a black robe to deem what HE thinks is the law. You bet... Until they do what you don’t like...
Yeah. A hard core SFB leftist.
Just scanning his bio tells us he is a low-life, pro-abortion, queer marriage loving scum.
And worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
I continue to be fascinated that though marriage is arguably an establishment of religion no one every names this a breach of the wall separating church and state.
Conveniently when the state attacks traditional religious belief the wall lays down like a drawbridge.
marriage used to have a purpose of establishing law & order & continuity. Sex can be creative & procreative, but also can be destructive & without marriage & monogamy, women wouldn’t know who the children of their babies were. Marriage served the purpose of giving fathers a stake so they could be held responsible, and wives, husbands, children, schools, public all knew who the fathers of the babies were...but then we began to subsidize illegitimacy & let unwed mothers have ‘standing “ to sue for child support. We allowed co-habitation & got rid of laws against sodomy & we began “no fault” (unconstitutional divorce) where—instead of having government ENFORCE the marriage contract agreed upon often in church weddings, you had government nullify the marriage contract & render the church contract as basically a “fraud”....allowing serial marriages which serve no public purpose.
One reason WHY we had marriage law was to institutionalize HETEROSEXUAL monogamy as the carrot-—because it was generally agreed upon that all homosexual behavior was disordered & thereby was undeserving of government sanction...and better left privately in the closet. If marriage is everything, then it’s nothing. There’s no public purpose for homosexual marriage & it doesn’t matter if homosexuals imitate heterosexuals & form couples, because who cares if they are monogamous? What public purpose does it serve, really? Marriage has been degraded so much by liberalism & radical individualism, that the state no longer has an honest stake in marrying anybody & we might as well not have marriage at all-—and especially not church marriage as long as the contract isn’t binding as agreed upon in church ceremony. Why should the government institutionalize homosexual monogamy as equivalent to heterosexual monogamy that serves a PUBLIC purpose? Basically, liberals argue that “we have degraded marriage to the point where it is so meaningless that same-sex marriage can’t degrade it even worse!”
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.