(This is the second of a three-part series)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy based his pro-sodomy majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas on legal sources that relied on the proven fraud, Prof. Alfred C. Kinsey. Kennedy has company. Citing Kinsey’s phony “data” is standard procedure in the legal profession-and in the academic “scholarship” that jurists use to support their rulings.
Part one in this series exposed the Court’s “scientific understanding” in Lawrence as turning on the 1955 American Law Institute Model Penal Code (ALIMPC) and the 1957 (British) Wolfenden Report. Both relied on Kinsey’s bogus “findings” in his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).
In part two, we’ll scrutinize more Kinsey-worshiping-the sort of “scientific subject matter” that persuaded six Supreme Court justices in Lawrence that outlawing “homosexual sodomy furthers no legitimate state interest.”
In his powerful dissent from Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia warned, “[s]tate laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity . . . [are all] called into question by today’s decision.”
In addition, he chided the academic “law-profession culture” for relying on everything but the Constitution.
Academia’s Sexual Ideology
Justice Scalia is right; the “law-profession culture” is on record as subscribing to Kinsey’s sexual ideology. Consider that over a 16-year period, from 1982 to 1998, at least 1,000 major law school journal articles quoted Kinsey as their sex science authority. And the critically important American Association of Law Schools commands total submission to its homosexual “equity” ethic.
But it’s not just the law schools. One survey (American Enterprise, 2002) confirms the anecdotal observation that almost 100% of those teaching history, women’s and “gay studies” in our major universities are self-identified as leftists. This means academia is blacklisting traditionalist scholars. That is bad science-and, as seen in Lawrence, it produces bad law.
Kinsey disciples also dominate the social sciences. The Science Citation & Social Science Citation Indices from 1948 to 1997 yielded 5,796 academic publications that quoted Kinsey, far more than the next “sexuality” contender, Masters & Johnson, at 3,716.
Instead of objectively searching for truth, scholars are accepting Kinseyan sexuality uncritically because they like his fake “findings.”
As University of Michigan English Professor David Halperin wrote in 1996, “lesbian and gay studies . . . expresses an uncompromising political militancy . . . [triggering] a far-reaching intellectual transformation in the disciplines of the humanities, arts and social sciences as well as in the social life of American universities and in the professional culture of American academe.”
In “What Gay Studies Taught the Court,” Rick Perlstein, a Washington Post reporter, notes that “gay studies . . . history professors” have helped demolish America’s anti-sodomy laws by legitimizing what were formerly viewed as “political correctness” and “special interest studies.” He says the Supreme Court has made “gay studies . . . scholarship . . . bedrock . . . for settling the law of the land.”
In Lawrence, the Court endorsed the sexual research by name of “gay studies” figures, along with Richard Posner, Chief Justice of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ALIMPC, as well as all of the Court’s academic experts that follow, trace their “pioneering” origin to Kinsey. Yet none condemns-or even admits-his sexual psychopathic and sadistic “orientation” and his employment of pedophiles to sodomize infants and children. The “orgasm” tests (see Table 34), timed by stopwatch, are reproduced from Kinsey’s 1948 volume.
First, consider the Court’s cite to Posner’s Overcoming Law. Here Posner says, “Kinsey’s scale . . . from zero to six . . . represent[s] the range of homosexual preferences,” invoking Kinsey’s made-up homosexual index as if it reflected reality. Posner repeats Kinsey’s fraudulent “findings” on pure faith and praises his supposed sexual wisdom, but conveniently ignores Kinsey collaborators’ wicked “orgasm” torture “experiments” on children-even on babies less than a year old. The psychopathic Kinsey is Posner’s sex authority . . . and Posner is the Court’s sex authority.
Next, the Court names Intimate Matters, by Estelle Freedman and John D’Emilio, well-funded professors of History, Women’s and Gay Studies. They devote a full 20 of their text’s 428 pages to quoting Kinsey’s claims. Kinsey made, they say, “the strongest assault on sexual reticence in the public realm” and helped sway Supreme Court decisions on “obscenity.”
The “new history” typically uses Kinsey’s fraud to sabotage marital fidelity and chastity. Freedman and D’Emilio hide the truth that so few normal women would talk to Kinsey that he had to define a wife as someone who merely lived “at least a year” with a man. By casting prostitutes and other aberrant women as spouses, Kinsey created high rates of female premarital promiscuity, adultery and abortion that these “historians” told the Court were true.
The authors point out that “Kinsey’s estimates dwarfed all previous calculations” of homosexuality, but they cover up data which disprove Kinsey’s ideology-driven claims that homosexuality is “benign.” Kinsey is Freedman and D’Emilio’s sex authority and they are the court’s sex authority.
Lastly, the court quotes from “gay studies historian” Jonathan Katz’s book, The Invention of Heterosexuality, which promotes Kinsey’s frauds. Katz argues elsewhere that ever since “Kinsey’s scale,” the notion of “an erotic continuum has become a popular mainstay of a liberal sexual pluralism,” adding that “serious” writing about sex has been designed . . . to give a bastard subject legitimacy.”
In its citations of Kinsey-worshipping academics, the U.S. Supreme Court left out a few awkward facts about Kinsey as sexual “authority.” For instance, Kinsey hid his own bisexual, homosexual, pornographic, sadomasochistic and pedophile “interests.”
Even friendly biographer James Jones documented Kinsey’s sexual harassment of males, his masturbation compulsion and the violent sex rituals that led to his untimely death. Jones confirmed that Kinsey disguised himself as a staid, middle-American family man and scholar in order to promote his legal and socio-sexual agenda.
Kinsey is at once the most powerful, and the weakest, link in the liberals’ chain as they incessantly subvert American health and welfare.