By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. and Mary E. McAlister, Esq. _________________________________________________________________________________

As a Harvard Law School professor, the Hon. Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan opined:

“Richard Posner is the most important legal thinker of our time and for generations to come legal scholars will dissect and analyze, will praise and criticize his distinctive legal vision.”[1]

Thus it is important to examine the September 4, 2014 decision of Chief Judge Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit, rejecting the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.[2] For decades homosexual activists have insisted that they lead daily lives that are “basically similar to those of heterosexual[s]” and that “[t]he sex and love lives of most gay and straights today are both similar and conventional.” [3]

Giving credence to Justice Kagan’s analysis of Judge Posner’s scholarship, this article analyzes his scholarship on homosexuality, standing as it does on much of his knowledge of the original sex research of fellow Harvard alumnus, Alfred C. Kinsey.[4] Judge Posner’s professional trust in Kinsey’s data was predicted by Indiana University Dean Frank Horack in 1950:

The principal impact of the Kinsey Report will be on...the law...[aiding] police officers, prosecutors, judges….They will use the data and their professional advice will be heeded by the judge. Here the Report will control many decisions and dictate the disposition and treatment of many offenders.[5]

Even absent evidence of alleged “sameness” judges of the Seventh Circuit adopted the concept wholeheartedly in its September 4, 2014 decision purporting to legalize same sex “marriage,” another judicial decision spawned by the Kinsey Report (1948).[6]


I.  Posner Does Not Define What Marriage Is—Only What Marriage Is Not!

Shrewdly, nowhere in his 75 page opinion does Judge Posner attempt to define “marriage.” “If you wish to converse with me define your terms”[7]said Voltaire. In logic meaning, “act of stating what something means." The court states only that marriage is not restricted--to heterosexual monogamy. The most honorable of human estates, inspiring the most lofty literature and stirring poetry is, by this judicial ruling, now everything, anything and nothing.

The September 4, 2014 Seventh Circuit decision is the latest example of judicial activists abandoning the rule of law to facilitate the agenda propelled by Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, elevating orgasm (however obtained) as the sine qua non of life. For years Judge Posner’s texts extoled Kinsey, the father of “the sexual revolution.” Indeed, in his 1992 book, Sex and Reason, Judge Posner said, “The two Kinsey reports remain the high-water mark of descriptive sexology” and calls Kinsey the “central figure” in the “scholarly science” of sexology.[8] By definition that “scholarly science” is pansexual, viewing conjugal coitus as one “sexual outlet” among many, e.g., bi/homosexual, group sex, child-adult, bestiality, etc., (society had defined these as perversions) all honored and dignified by law. Posner’s Seventh Circuit opinion excludes no “sexual outlet” from its open “definition” of marriage. He never defines marriage, he just rules against “traditional” marriage.

Posner’s incorporation of Kinsey’s worldview was forecast in 1950 by Indiana University Law School Dean, Frank Horack, Jr., “[e]ven when not offered into evidence [the Kinsey Report] will condition official action.” Court experts “will use the data and their professional advice will be heeded by the judge.”[9] Judge Posner indeed heeded Kinsey when overturning the historical, objective definition of marriage as the sexually exclusive contract of one man and one woman for life.


II.  Manipulating The Language To Manipulate The Culture

Judge Posner’s jettisoning of the objective definition of marriage reflects the pansexual movement’s efforts to create a new American sexual vocabulary. Noah Webster spent 27 years collecting 12,000 words to distinguish American culture from British culture. Homosexual anthropologist and lexicographer Bruce Rodgers spent 12 years[10] collecting 12,000 words to distinguish homosexual “culture” from heterosexual “culture.” Webster said, “A national language is a band of national union…Let us...establish a national language, as well as a national government.”[11] Webster’s years of work culminated in the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. Rodgers’ years of work culminated in the 1972 The Queens’ Vernacular A Gay Lexicon (“QV”).[12]

At the country’s founding Webster’s “new vocabulary was directly related to the American philosophy of government.” Similarly, Rodger’s new vocabulary is directly related to the homosexual philosophy of government seen in myriad legal changes, including the definition of marriage. Linguist S.I. Hayakawa noted, "[c]lassifications...determine our attitudes…” and anthropologist Franz Boas explained “Language is culture.” “The Queens' Vernacular is…a lexicon of actual speech; the vernacular, the street language ... pointedly revealing.”[13]

For example, QV’s “pointedly revealing” language defines “married” as “living together with another homosexual in a partnership of mutual consent, ‘Barney got married last night--which bar was in in this week?’”[14] Similarly, Kinsey lumped illicit with licit as “married” in Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). Women were married if they were living with their spouses in formally consummated legal marriages, or “in common-law relationships which had lasted for at least a year,”[15] which in the 1940s would have included only sexually radical women, including his large group of prostitute “subjects.”

Kinsey’s inclusive definition of marriage echoed his expansive definition of sex, which included investing sex with animals “with a certain dignity by suggesting they could achieve a psychological intensity comparable to that in exclusively human sexual relations.”[16] Kinsey felt “all orgasms were equal, regardless of how one came by them [hence] there were no grounds for placing heterosexual intercourse in a privileged position.”[17] This was Kinsey’s principle of “outlet sex” (currently taught as sex education). As “gay culture” historian Paul Robinson said, the notion of “outlet sex” enabled Kinsey to relegate marital heterosexual intercourse to an inferior place in the sexual spectrum.

The notion of outlet, for all its apparent innocence, performed important critical services for Kinsey. Principal among these was the demotion of heterosexual intercourse to merely one among a democratic roster of six possible forms of sexual release….[M]arital intercourse….received about one third the attention devoted to homosexual relations. . . . a remarkable feat of sexual leveling . . . the fundamental categories of his analysis clearly worked to undermine the traditional [marital] sexual order.[18] (Emphasis added).

Kinsey would “undermine the traditional sexual order” and eliminate marriage as society’s foundational building block. There is nothing wrong with disregarding tradition if sound scientific research really shows it to be unfounded. But both Kinsey and his data were frauds.


III. The Fraud That Homosexual and Heterosexual Relationships Are Equal.

Judge Posner repeats Kinsey’s activists’ mantra that “homosexual married couples are in essential respects….like other married couples.”[19] However, the evidence demonstrates otherwise. Evidence provided by homosexual researchers establishes that infidelity is now and has always been the orthodox homosexual lifestyle. The data repeatedly confirm that homosexuals do not seek “marriage” for the purpose of establishing either “monogamy” or “fidelity” as the American public historically understands those words.

The homosexual campaign for “marriage” excludes the ideal of a faithful, lifetime union and wholly embraces adultery as a legitimate “marital” act, thus campaigning not for marriage but for legalized adultery. The pre-eminent homosexual magazine, The Advocate’s self-report survey of 2,500 men revealed only two percent had only one sexual partner. Roughly 52 percent said they were monogamous in their last relationship “as far as I know,” 28 percent had sex with others but were “supposed” to be monogamous, and 20 percent were in “open” relationships.[20]

Alfred and Clara Kinsey’s “marriage” was classically homosexual. Kinsey engaged in anonymous, sadomasochistic sodomy with multiple male partners who were often infected with venereal disease, aided and abetted by creating and using pornography.[21] By comparison, for opposite-sex married couples, “estimates are that about 3% to 4% of currently married people have a sexual partner besides their spouse in a given year and about 15% to 18% of ever-married people have had a sexual partner other than their spouse while married.”[22]

Kinsey Institute data (hardly conservative) show 43 percent of homosexual men report from 100 to 1000 or more partners in their lifetime.[23] Similarly, among lesbians, 72 percent had between five and 50 or more partners in their lifetime.[24] In dramatic contrast, heterosexual men report a median of seven sex partners and women a median of four sex partners in their lifetime.[25]

As for length of commitment, of those homosexuals who were in a relationship (while largely unfaithful) 77 percent report it lasted a year or more and 26 percent more than ten years.[26] By comparison, U.S. Census data show (largely faithful) married couples; 81 percent were married for at least 5 years, 53 percent at least 15 years, and 33 percent 25 years.[27]

So, despite Kinsey’s and Judge Posner’s assertions that homosexual and heterosexual couples are “essentially the same,” readily available evidence proves radical un-sameness.


IV.  The Fraud That Economies Can Flourish Outside Of Heterosexual Monogamy.

Judge Posner, though regarded as an expert on economics and law[28], failed to acknowledge the economic realities that underlie the state’s protection of marriage as the union of one man with special protections for woman and progeny.

The state elaborates its argument from the wonders of tradition by asserting that…“thousands of years of collective experience has [sic] established traditional marriage, between one man and one woman, as optimal for the family, society, and civilization.” No evidence in support of the claim of optimality is offered, and there is no acknowledgment that a number of countries permit polygamy—Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, and Algeria—and that it flourishes in many African countries that do not actually authorize it, as well as in parts of Utah.[29]

While “polygamy” may “flourish” so does clitoridectomy, (the excision of the clitoris, usually performed as part of female initiation rites, mainly among certain African peoples, but also sometimes used in various societies to curb sexual desire[30]) performed on 125 million girls and women,[31] in the 29 countries in Africa and Middle East (with traumatic and even fatal health consequences--in most of the countries cited for “flourishing” by Judge Posner.

Therefore, while polygamy may flourish, women’s health, rights and the economy do not. Sociobiologists point out that among the roughly 847 identified human cultures, 83percent condone polygamy, 16 percent monogamy and, 0.47 percent polyandry.[32] World Bank figures for official and unofficial polygamous societies reveal, excluding oil-rich countries (in which a small minority have obscene wealth), average per capita household income is $3,900. Even including the oil-rich countries only raises the average to $8,800.[33]

By comparison, the average annual per capita household income for countries that have been built on heterosexual monogamy include Norway, $102,000; Canada, $52,000; Japan, $46,000; the United Kingdom, $39,000 and the United States, $53,000.[34]

These figures reflect the economic historical fact that societies built upon Judeo-Christian values, particularly marriage as the union of one man and one woman, create thriving economies with high standards of living—valuing women’s and children’s health and rights. Therefore, contrary to Judge Posner’s conclusion, a society built upon marriage as the union of one man and one woman does indeed create the optimal economic and social environment for building family and the civil society.

Instead of embracing these economic realities, Judge Posner has created an economic philosophy that, again, reflects Kinseyan pansexuality. In his textbook, Economic Analysis of the Law, he conducts an economic analysis of rape and perceives of the possibility of a “rape license.” This arrogant analysis would equalize the economic effects of rape. For his “right to rape,” sometime (for some men at least) “exceeds the victim’s physical and emotional pain.” [35]


V.  Judge Posner’s Claim That “Married” Homosexual Parents Would Make For Happier Children Is Not Supported By The Evidence.

Judge Posner said that if “homosexual adoptive parents” were married (undefined) children would be happier.[36] Unfortunately again, the evidence is otherwise. The three major health hazards for homosexual men are 1) AIDS, 2) drug and alcohol abuse and 3) domestic battery.[37] Lesbians; 1) cancer, 2) drug and alcohol abuse and 3) domestic battery. Homosexual authors, Island and Letellier write, “We estimate that at least 500,000 gay men are abused by their lovers each year.”[38] They point out what Judge Posner might have found obvious;

Men in heterosexual couples commit 95 percent of the battering. But, there are two men present in a gay couple…either member has the same possibility of being a batterer…the probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple…the vast majority of men to not hit women. Not so with men however…violence among gay men is nearly double that in the homosexual population.[39]

Children in those households are particularly at risk. The authors caution:

Gays must admit “wealthy, white, educated, ‘“politically correct”’ gay men batter their lovers.”[40] “In every article that has been written about gay men’s domestic violence, one topic invariably comes up: Silence….There is definitely a lot of denial. It’s one of the best kept secrets in the gay community. No one will listen. No one will hear….As for violence in the relationships of gay men, there is even greater silence and denial than there is about lesbian battering. [41]

Similarly, lesbian households are risky for children.

31 percent of lesbian mothered children said they had been forced to have sex as did 25 percent of homosexually fathered children and 8 percent of children in biologically parented homes.[42]

Globally, Great Britain gay and lesbian cohabiters separate more than heterosexual cohabiters,[43] while in Norway and Sweden “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages.” Swedish lesbians divorce “over three times more than heterosexual couples” and “Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce as heterosexual couples…”[44]


VI.  The “Scientific” Subject Matter Underlying Same-Sex “Marriage”

Justice Stephen Breyer said, “[L]aw cases can turn almost entirely on an understanding of the underlying . . . scientific subject matter.”[45] In the Seventh Circuit marriage decision, the underlying subject matter is what Judge Posner called “the high-water mark…[of] scholarly science,” i.e, Kinsey’s “data,” including his definition of marriage as couple intimacy lasting “for at least a year,” (fidelity aside).[46]

Judge Posner presaged his 2014 conclusion in 1995 when he wrote in Overcoming Law, “[w]hile heterosexual marriage is closely connected to human biology, the recognition of marriage between homosexuals would not violate any biological imperative.”[47] However, his conclusion not based on biology but based upon scientific misconduct shown to damage society.[48]

In other words, in this case, the underlying “scientific” subject matter is based upon 60 years of criminal methodology[49] touted by Judge Posner (and others) as credible evidence of the need to fundamentally transform society, now including marriage. The Judge looked to sexology for his sex experts and concluded that the work of Kinsey dwarfs all others “in both sample size and interviewing depth.”[50]

The Kinsey studies, when their limitations are understood and respected, are a vast mine of useful information.…because of the extraordinary length to which the interviewers went to elicit truthful answers.[51]

But, Kinsey told his interviewers they should “force” correct answers from their subjects. “Forcing a subject.…Some…don’t want to give an honest sexual history…[Interviewers] should denounce the subject with considerable severity....”[52] The elitist interviewers know best. These “truthful” answers came from 1,400 subjects who were sex offenders[53] while 75 percent of subjects[54] were eliminated from the data base. Judge Posner has also relied upon the “Kinsey scale,” that “10 to 37 percent of the population are homosexual at least some time in their lives.”[55] This ersatz scale, used worldwide as “evidence” of bi/homosexuality, was concocted largely from those denied entry into the military during the years when the “Greatest Generation” fought WWII.

Kinsey devised a scale of zero to six to represent the range of homosexual preferences. A zero has only heterosexual preference, a six only homosexual preference. A three is a perfect bisexual, indifferent to the sex of his partner. Kinsey proxied preference by “fantasy”: what kind of sexual relations do we (day) dream of having? Our fantasies reveal preferences that have a certain (though not the only or even primary) authenticity because they are not affected by costs and benefits stemming from our interactions with other people. They are in a rough sense pre-social, biological preferences.[56]

Pre-social, biological? Even Kinsey belied the claim. “Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual & homosexual.” He opined that some men are homosexual some heterosexual and some change throughout their lives.[57] Kinsey’s claim was that sexuality is a continuum. Judge Posner did not do his homework in this regard, sharing his bogus sex “research,” departing even from his mentor Kinsey, when he concludes that:

[Homosexuality] is an immutable (and probably an innate, in the sense of in-born) characteristic rather than a choice. Wisely, neither Indiana nor Wisconsin argues otherwise. The American Psychological Association[58] has said that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. The leading scientific theories of the causes of homosexuality are genetic and neuroendocrine theories, the latter being theories that sexual orientation is shaped by a fetus’s exposure to certain hormones.[59]

A new social construct of same-sex “marriage” has been built upon fraud.


VII. Calling Homosexuality Immutable Ignores Early Sex Abuse By Men

In asserting that homosexuality is immutable, both the American Psychological Association and Judge Posner shamefully ignore the homosexual literature itself and studies that identify early sex abuse as a glaring feature of homosexual orientation. The July 2000 US DOJ National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) said males accounted for 96 percent of all of sexual offenders recorded by law enforcement. Some of these males offended against boys.

Boys under age 12 were 25 percent of all sex abuse victims. [Forcible sodomy peaked at] around age 4…The risk of being sexually assaulted with an object peaked at ages 3 and 4, then fell to less than half by age 8. The NIBRS data find that 63 percent of all forcible sodomy victims under age 5 are boys, 64 percent of sodomized children under age 12 are boys and 49 percent of sodomized children between 12 and 17 are boys… the estimated 2percent to 5percent bi/homosexual cluster is mainly responsible for the reported sodomizing of boys….[60]

Boy victims of early sex abuse are then labeled by the homosexual community as “gay,” which Judge Posner asserts is an immutably inherited characteristic. It is safe to say that The 1994 Advocate self-report Survey of Sexuality understated child abuse. Still, 21percent of men responded they were sexually victimization by an adult by age 15. Since older teen abuse was not counted as abuse we can estimate roughly double that number abused by age 18 (the common age boundary for child sex abuse data).[61]

In For Money or Love,[62] Robin Lloyd reported on runaways[63] and high school students marketed in boy prostitution rings.[64] Birch Bayh found Lloyd’s data “frightening in its accuracy.”[65] Decades before the “pedophile priest” scandal, there was a “growing abuse and murder of boys.”[66] Said Lloyd:

Perhaps half of the….runaway boys in this country (aged 10 to 16) are peddling their bodies to “chicken hawks”– older men who lust for “chicken” [boys][67]… There are tightly run organizations…geared to provide wealthy clients with both pornography and boys…their boys will entertain movie stars, prominent athletes, politicians, and in some cases, heads of state.[68]

Sexual libertarian Richard Green, in Sexual Science and the Law (1992), writes of at least 600,000 prostituted boys and girls, average age reported as “fourteen (two years after the first experience with intercourse).”[69] Early abuse and broken marriages are directly linked to the “adult centric” prostitution of children who are then labeled as “homosexual.” Ignoring this information in favor of a “conclusion” that homosexuality is immutable is particularly egregious for the Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit, who is obligated to objectively analyze all of the facts and the law in reaching a decision. However, in the post-Kinsey academic legal community, seven decades of law review articles and legal opinions have largely eliminated or lightened women-and child-protective laws.

As in “no-fault divorce,” “archaic” Judeo-Christian laws have been replaced by a service exchange between bogus equals—women, men and children. This replicates Kinsey’s “remarkable feat of sexual leveling” aimed at undermining “the traditional sexual order.” Kinsey’s deep animus against what he saw as the negative effect of Judeo-Christian tradition on society is identified by “gay culture” historian Paul Robinson, who explained that Kinsey saw masturbation, exhibitionism, sex with animals or coitus with Clara Kinsey as equally the same experience.


VIII: A Peek at the History of Kinsey Changed Law as Contempt for Children

The September 4th Seventh Circuit decision is merely reflective of Judge Posner’s and others’ earlier adoption of the Kinseyan concept of “sexual leveling.” In his 1952 Harvard Law Review article, Herbert Wechsler cited Kinsey and called for a Model Penal Code, because the high crime rate proved common laws then in effect were ineffective and “unscientific.”[70]

Since violent crime increased 993 percent from 1951 to 1999 the legal changes to reduce crime proved to be a staggering failure. The 5.1 percent increase in the child population from 1976 to 1999 does not explain skyrocketing levels of sex crimes, venereal diseases, illegitimacy and abortions in teenage populations. However, the loss of protections for women and children that had existed in law, does:[71] At least seventy percent more murder; 416 percent more forcible rape; 5,171 percent more confirmed Child Sex Abuse have been reported since Wechsler’s call to change the law to lower crime.[72] Post Kinsey examples of legal academia adopting sexual leveling and trivialization of pre-Kinsey laws:[73]

  • In 1950 The Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (GAP) said: “[P]ersons under the age of 7 . . . are… fully capable of part or exceptionally even full responsibility for sexual behavior….”[74]
  • The 1955 Model Penal Code: rape of 10 yr. olds. An “actor must be at least 5 years older” for criminal rape. The “previous promiscuity of the child” should be considered.[75]
  • 1962 Vanderbilt Law Review: “Even at the age of four or five, [her] seductiveness may be so powerful as to overwhelm the adult . . . The affair is therefore not always the result of the adult’s aggression; often the young female is the initiator and seducer.”[76]
  • 1966 Brooklyn Law Review: “[A] girl at puberty fully understands...sexual intercourse and the fiction of non-consent, which the law sets up, does not correspond to the facts….As revealed in [Kinsey’s] data and in his conferences with the Commission, behavior in conflict with our legal and moral codes is exceedingly common.”[77]
  • 1969 Georgia Law Review: “Child molestation is a “relatively minor crime.” The “absurdity of enforcing most of our sex laws…should be obvious, even to the most prudish Neo-Puritans.”[78]
  • 1973 Missouri Revision Commission: Rape and child abuse “carry extremely severe punishment…Those few who are punished are dealt with cruelly, to the satisfaction of no one except a shrinking frenetic fringe of maniacal moralists.”[79]

These are only a few examples of seven decades of trivialization of women and child-protective laws reflecting a seismic shift from a child-centric to a narcissistic adult-centric society. However, when Wisconsin argued that “allowing same-sex marriage creates a danger of ‘shifting the public understanding of marriage away from a largely child-centric institution to an adult-centric institution,’” Judge Posner dismissed the assertion.

No evidence is presented that same-sex marriage is on average less ‘child-centric’ and more emotional than an infertile marriage of heterosexuals, or for that matter that no-fault divorce has rendered marriage less ‘child-centric.’[80]

In fact, Judge Posner as well as the lawyers for Indiana and Wisconsin should have cited ample evidence that no-fault divorce increased child sexual abuse and therefore has rendered marriage less child-centric. Although often divorce cannot be avoided, child abuse increases with a non-biological parent.

[T]he addition of a stepfather to a girl's family causes her vulnerability to skyrocket. Girls who are merely without fathers were about 50 percent more vulnerable than the average girl, but girls with stepfathers were almost 150 percent more vulnerable….Clinicians have noted that in many cases of father-daughter incest the offender was really a stepfather[81]…. Indeed our data give support to this picture. The rate of father-daughter incest is much higher in the families with stepfathers than in any other subgroup in the whole survey--almost five times higher….[G]irls in these families are more vulnerable to stepbrothers, stepsisters, step cousins…[and possibly] a coterie of friends and acquaintances who are not so protective toward a stepdaughter. (Emphasis added).[82]

And these data at least refer to a committed, that is, a biological parent’s married partner, not the boyfriend of the mother or of the father. Again Judge Posner ignores evidence incompatible with his Kinseyan view of sexuality and marriage.


IX.  Disdain For Tradition Shows Contempt For Child-Protective Judeo Christian Values.

The most telling revelation of Judge Posner’s adoption of Kinsey’s pansexual worldview is his disdain for the states’ argument that tradition counsels against redefining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That disdain relied in large part on non traditionalist, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a eugenic believer, who famously declared that “Three generations of imbeciles are enough” while upholding the forced sterilization of a “socially inadequate” young rape victim.[83] From Judge Posner’s perspective:

There are good traditions, bad traditions …cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee…Traditions per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination—regardless of the age of the tradition. Holmes thought it revolting to [quote Bible verses].[84]

Posner/Kinseyan philosophy ignores medical and legal reality and history, reflected in Judge Posner’s statement that “homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities in the history of the world.”[85] Here, Judge Posner must “level” objections to “gays” with the history of atrocities, of murder of millions of men, women and children of really immutable populations—Jewish, Black, Indian, Asian, etc. Furthermore, despite decades of searching for a “gay gene,” modern scientific opinion confirms nature AND nurture; there is no gay gene to account for homosexuality.[86]

Moreover, all white homosexual males have always had rights denied to women and to minorities. White males have been free to vote, to own, rent, sell or deed property and businesses, have a bank account and charge cards in their own name, to travel, to enter public and private facilities alone or in a party, the right to primary, secondary and advanced education, to run for and to hold public office, etc., and the right to divorce their wives and remarry (with protective rights for women in place like fault divorce against bigamy, alienation of affection, awards of alimony, etc.).

These and sundry other “male” rights (which homosexual men could enjoy) were denied to women and black men largely until the first half of the 20th Century. By hijacking women’s “marriage” rights and benefits, homosexuals would a) repeal women’s natural right to select from the total male gene pool and b) hijack women’s hard won contractual and social marital benefits, carved out of generations of women’s struggle for justice and equality for themselves and their offspring.[87]


X.  Finally, Judge Posner and the Children of Table 34

Judge Posner claims to be a sexuality scholar having read and therefore quoted Kinsey’s works on sex as accurate and noble. No man in modern times has shaped public attitudes and perceptions of human sexuality more than the late Alfred C. Kinsey. He advocated that all sexual behaviors considered deviant were normal, while polemicizing that exclusive heterosexuality was abnormal and a product of cultural inhibitions and societal conditioning.

Beginning just over 60 years ago, he and his team of researchers presented the American people with "statistical data" showing that what they were supposedly doing sexually was more liberal, and more consistent with his own ideology, than anyone had believed possible. Put another way, Kinsey demonstrated with numbers that "normal" behavior was much more permissive than conventional wisdom had suspected.

Few people realized that the data he presented were not, as claimed, scientific. Nor were the data representative of societal norms. And it now is clear that Kinsey’s results were actually criminally fraudulent. His “proof” that children are sexual from birth, that they are capable of “orgasms” (317 to 2,035 infants and children, the youngest 2 months) tested 24 hours around the clock, in Chapter 5 of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948, has justified the growing pedophile movement and the mass sex trafficking of children.


Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948, page 180


Yet, Judge Posner did not “see” the data right in front of him. How can a judge, relied upon for objective review and analysis, ignore the charts (Appendix) and the “proofs” of Kinsey’s child torture? The following are four of what Kinsey called, “six types” of “orgasmic” responses of children under 12 years of age.

  1. Extreme tension with violent convulsion…sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children)…about one sixth (17percent) of the pre-adolescent boys.
  1. As in either type 1 or 2; but with hysterical laughing, talking, sadistic or masochistic reactions, rapid motions (whether in masturbation or in intercourse)….continued through the orgasm. A small percentage (5percent)…
  1. …sometimes fainting of subject….occasionally occurs throughout the life of an individual. Regular in only a few (3percent) of the pre-adolescent…males.
  1. Pained or frightened.… The genitalia… become hypersensitive…some males suffer excruciating pain and may scream if movement is continued or the penis even touched. The males in the present group become similarly hypersensitive before the arrival of actual orgasm will fight away from the partner [the rapist] and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although [says Kinsey] they derive definite pleasure from the situation….About 8 per cent of the younger boys are involved here…[88]

That Judge Posner uses the Kinsey “scale” and scholarship to advocate for homosexual “marriage” and never condemns Tables, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 and the child abuse narrative, exposes the need for a re-analysis of his and others’ scholarship underpinning the claims that “marriage” should not remain restricted to the union of one man and one woman.

The courts’ recent decisions on marriage are merely the latest examples of the concerted effort to replace the Judeo-Christian worldview of the Constitution with the pansexual Kinseyan worldview. Other examples include Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court de-criminalized sodomy[89] and Steffan v. Perry, which addressed homosexuality in the military.[90] The law should be founded not on fraudulent sex “science,” including the inconvenient documentation of the unconscionable sexual abuse of children, but on the firm foundation of the Constitution.





[1] Elena Kagan, Richard Posner, the Judge, 120 Harvard L. Rev., 1121 (March 2007).

[2] Baskin v. Bogan, 2014 WL 4359059 (7th Cir. 2014).

[3] Mark Thompson, The Advocate: Long Road to Freedom, (1994). Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball 1989. “Homosexualities, a widely publicized study issued by the Kinsey Institute [in 1978] showed that gay men lead daily lives that are basically similar to those of heterosexual men.”

[4] Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, (1948); Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, 53 (1953).

[5] Frank Horack, Jr. “Sex Offenses and Scientific Investigation,” Illinois Law Review, Vol. 44, 1950, at 156, 158. See especially, Kinsey’s Criminal Psychopathology in American Law at: http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2014/04/kinseys_crimina.html.

[6] Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, WB Saunders Co.,( 1948).

[7] Voltaire, http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if_you_wish_to_converse_with_me-define_your/175628.html

[8] Richard A. Posner, Sex and Reason, at. 19 (Harvard University Press, 1992).

[9] Horack, at 156, 158.

[10] Bruce Rodgers, The Queens’ Vernacular, Straight Arrow Books, San Francisco, Cal, (front page has boy scout graphic as their mascot, back page cites years spent on research). Reprinted 1979 as Gay talk. See also James W. Chesebro, GaySpeak, Pilgrim Press, 1981.

[11] Slater, Rosalie, J. Noah Webster’s First Edition of An American Dictionary of the English Language, at. 17-18, 23-25.

[12] Rodgers, Ibid. See also Judith Reisman, Ph.D., Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, at 79, 170, 172, (2d ed. 2000).

[13] QV at Forward, unpaginated.

[14] QV, at 131: Public on line see: http://odps.org/glossword/index.php?a=term&t=70a4b19caeb0a26b6aa4b0ab53a3.

[15] Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, WB Saunders Co, at 53 (1953).

[16] Paul Robinson, The Modernization of Sex, Harper & Row, New York, (1976), at 55, 56, 59.

[17] Ibid at 59.

[18] Robinson, Ibid, at 58, 59.

[19] Baskin v. Bogan, 2014 WL 4359059 at *5 (7th Cir. 2014).

[20] August 23, 1994, “The Advocate Survey of Sexuality” self report data on partner relationships, at 22-24. See also, Reisman and Johnson, The Briefing Book www.scribd.com/doc/38648184/The-Briefing-Book,

[21] James H. Jones, Dr. Yes, The New Yorker August 25 and September 1, 1997 at 99-113. In fact, it appears that Kinsey died from “orchitis” contracted venereally and/or from self-inflicted masturbatory trauma inflicted on his sex organs. Id.

[22] K. Bowman, Just How Many Spouses Cheat? Forbes (June 29, 2009) citing NORC General Social Survey, http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/28/sanford-ensign-affair-opinions-columnists-extramarital-sex.html.

[23] Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, table 7, at. 308 (Kinsey Institute, 1978).

[24] Ibid.

[25] ScienceBlogs, http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/08/14/men-and-woman-cannot-have-diff.

[26] Ibid.

[27] U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf

[28] Judge Posner is the author of Economic Analysis of Law, which is widely used in law schools and is regarded as the leading authority on the interdisciplinary field of law and economics. See, Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, xix (Aspen Publishers, 6th ed. 2003).

[29] Baskin. at *15.

[30] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Clitoridectomy

[31] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

[32] See Shepher and Reisman (Bat-Ada) “Pornography: A Sociobiological Attempt at Understanding (1985) Ethology and Sociobiology, NYC: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., at 106 citing (Murdock 1967).

[33] http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/11103. Gendercide in India. “When the British colonised India in the 18th century, they were shocked to discover “missing girls”. Some accounts describe villages without a single girl.” Now polygamy is illegal except for Muslims.

[34] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNATPCAP.CD.

[35] Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, 8th edition, at 238 (Aspen Publishers, 2011). See also http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/federal-judge-envisions-rape-license-for-right-to-rape/#uYQo2SW5uTBZRTW2.99,

[36] Baskin, at *11.

[37] David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, New York, Harrington Park Press, 1991, at 13, 14,

[38] Ibid, at 16.

[39] Ibid, at 14.

[40] Ibid, at. at 16, 24

[41] Island, Ibid; at 13, 14, 8. and 36.

[42] M. Regnerus / Social Science Research 41 (2012) at 752–770, see also, Michael Shepherd http://www.pressherald.com/news/details-matter-when-citing-child-rearing-studies_2012-07-29.html.

[43] Strohm, Charles Q., “The Stability of Same-Sex Cohabitation, Different-Sex Cohabitation, and Marriage.” California Center for Population Research, UCLA, 1 Feb 2012, http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-CCPR-2010-013/PWP-CCPR-2010-013.pdf,

[44] Andersson, Noack, Seierstad and Weedon-Fekjaer, “The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden.” Demography, Volume 43 Feb 2006: 79-98. at 95.Full quote from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640.

[45] Stephen Breyer, The Interdependence of Science and Law, Science Magazine, Apr. 1998, at 537-38

[46] Sex and Reason, at. 19.

[47] Richard A. Posner, Overcoming Law, at 577 (Harvard University Press, 1995).

[48] Bratislav Stankovic, Pulp Fiction: Reflections of Scientific Misconduct, 2004 Wis. L. Rev. 975, 979-80 (2004).

[49] See Tables 30-34 on pages 175-180 in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in which Kinsey records the results of systematic child sexual abuse, mostly of boys, as young as two months old, beginning in the 1930s. The Kinsey Institute acknowledges the veracity of the tables, but asserts that Kinsey merely asked the pedophiles questions about the children’s “orgasms” after the fact. However, he testifies to the children’s reactions and orgasms as a participant observer and puts his imprimatur of accuracy on the crimes. The “children are sexual from birth” because they can be given orgasms by pedophiles mantra is now widely accepted and incorporated worldwide into sexual education curriculum to this day. Table 34 is reproduced below in the Appendix.

[50] Sex and Reason, at 19.

[51] Id.

[52] Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, at 55.

[53] Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, at 392. Kinsey states that they have data or more than1200 persons who have been convicted of sex offenses.” Elsewhere the figure is 1,400, etc.

[54] William Simon, quoted in Arno Karlen, Sexuality and Homosexuality, W. W. Norton, Inc., New York, 1971 at 456.

[55] See Sex and Reason, at. 119.

[56] Book, at.80.

[57] Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, at 639.

[58] Charles Socarides, MD, Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic, The Journal of Psychohistory, Vol 10, No 3, Winter, 1992; It should be noted that this current massive social came as a result of the American Psychiatric Association’s (December 1973) vote to normalize homosexuality, a vote which “relied heavily on the work of Alfred Kinsey and his belief in the normality of homosexuality.” at 322.

[59] Baskin at *4.

[60] Judith Reisman, How the FBI and DOJ Minimize Child Sexual Abuse Reporting, The Institute for Media Education, July 2002, http://drjudithreisman.com/archives/fbi.pdf.

[61] The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality, August 23, 1994, at 21. Reisman, The Briefing Book www.scribd.com/doc/38648184/The-Briefing-Book

[62] Robyn Lloyd, for money or love, Bantam, New York, 1976, p. 38.

[63] Id., Lloyd, p. 17.

[64] Id., Lloyd, p. x.

[65] Id., Lloyd, at ix.

[66] See Judith Reisman, http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/regent.pdf, REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW. [Vol. 14:283] “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth” 2004.

[67] Id., Lloyd, at book cover.

[68] Id., Lloyd, at 17.

[69] Richard Green, Sexual Science and the Law, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1992. p. 192.

[70] Herbert Wechsler, The Challenge of a Model Penal Code. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 65, 1952, at 1103.

[71] Reisman, supra., note 55..  These data are available in the FBI monograph cited as well as in “The Reisman & Johnson Report,” the Briefing Book on Male Sexual Orientation, and “Crafting Gay Children” see, http://drjudithreisman.org/

[72] Reisman, supra., note 55.

[73] Reisman, et al, Reliance on Kinsey’s “Scientific” Child Sex Atrocities and the Effects of His Crime and Fraud on Past and Current Law and Public Policy, Forthcoming in the Liberty Law Journal

[74] Manfried Guttmacher, Psychiatrically Deviated Sex Offenders, Report No. 9 (Committee on Forensic Psychiatry of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry 1950).

[75] American Law Institute, Model Penal Code § 43.02 (1955).

[76] Dr. Ralph Slovenko & Cyril Phillips, Psychosexuality and the Criminal Law, 15 VAND. L. REV. 797, 809 (1962) (emphasis added).

[77] Judge Morris Ploscowe, Sex Offenses in the New Penal Law, 32 Brooklyn L. Rev. 274 (1966).

[78] Pedophilia, Exhibitionism and Voyeurism: Legal Problems in the Deviant Society, 4 Ga. L. Rev. 149, 150 (1969) (emphasis added).

[79] Orville Richardson. Sexual Offenses Under the Proposed Missouri Criminal Code. Missouri Law Review, Vol. 38, 1973, at 372, 372.

[80] Baskin, 2014 WL 4359059 at *14.

[81] Consider the increase in incestuous infant exploitation and childhood venereal disease, Nadine Hartley, Yahoo! Contributor Network, “Disturbing Reports of Infant Rape Continue as the Public and Government Ignore Our Babies.” January 29, 2010. http://voices.yahoo.com/infant-rape-epidemic-america-5370565.html?cat=25. when vulnerable adults and teens believe “sexual development” begins at birth for “most children aged zero to three will…[e]xperience an erection or vaginal lubrication.” Barbara Huberman, RN, MEd, Director of Education and Outreach October 2002, Advocates for Youth, http://www.themediaproject.com/facts/development/0_3. Huberman is on the Advisory Committee for the National Sexuality Education Standards: Core Content and Skills, K-12. “Actually, Kinsey was the first sex researcher to uncover evidence that violation of the [incest] taboo does not necessarily shake heaven and earth…Pomeroy reports many beautiful romances between father and daughter [participants].” Penthouse magazine, “Incest: The Last Taboo,” December 1977.

[82] David Finklehor, Sexually Victimized Children, 1979, at 122-123. http://drjudithreisman.com/archives/fbi.pdf.

[83] Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927).

[84] Baskin, 2014 WL 4359059 at *14, citing Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., “The Path of the Law,” 10 Harv. L.Rev. 457, 469 (1897).

[85] Id. at *5. See also Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball, (1989) for the discussion of immutability; "Based on their personal experience, most straights probably would put the gay population at 1% or 2%," but when asked, people respond with the "‘10% gay’ statistic which our propagandists have been drilling into their heads for years." at 15. See also summary, id. at 14-16.

[86] Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, at 113-117 (Baker Books, 1996), citing W. Byne and B. Parsons, Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised, Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, no. 3, at 228-39

[87] Love” was never the reason for the marriage contract. The marriage covenant was a business contract which worked to balance the “war between the sexes,” protecting an aging wife/mother and her children against adventurous, fickle or mean-spirited male exploitation. There are no hard data which find celebrating “love” to be the purpose for marriage laws. If “love” were so all-powerful and reliable there would be no need for marriage laws. One can often fall in and out of love with many lovers. To create laws for the purpose of protecting and celebrating “love” would render monogamy--the protection of women and children--null and void.

[88] Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, (1948) at 160.

[89] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

[90] Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1994)