Judge Posner on Homosexual "Marriage"

This is posted at lawyer and philosophy of law professor, Keith Burgess-Jackson's blog:

Richard A. Posner on Homosexual "Marriage"

A decision by the Supreme Court holding that the Constitution entitles people to marry others of the same sex would be far more radical than any of the decisions cited by Eskridge. Its moorings in text, precedent, public policy, and public opinion would be too tenuous to rally even minimum public support. It would be an unprecedented example of judicial immodesty. That well-worn epithet "usurpative" would finally fit.

(Richard A. Posner, "Should There Be Homosexual Marriage? And If So, Who Should Decide?," review of The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment, by William N. Eskridge Jr, Michigan Law Review 95 [May 1997]: 1578-87, at 1585)

Note from KBJ: By 2014, Posner had changed his mind. I wonder what changed in 17 years. The text of the Constitution certainly didn't change

A Question for the (Il)liberal Christian Audience

For those of you who were in favor of yesterday's historic, Supreme Court decision (and it was a decision and not an interpretation) what do you honestly think about private institutions like colleges who refuse to hire practicing homosexuals?  I will presume that most of you were against the recent Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, so you have little problem with the government using its coercive power to either fine/imprison small business owners or make them violate their conscience.  And you were in favor of forcing every single state in the union to recognize gay "marriages" rather than letting the people of the states decide.

Are you also in favor of coercing every single private college either to hire practicing homosexuals or be denied federal aid in the form of grants and loans?  I don't see why you would be opposed to this given the reasons I have seen (and I know what a lot of my secular colleagues think.)  I assume that you would be in favor of coercing them too by cutting off funds.  But I'll be interested to hear whether my assumption is wrong and what your reasons are.  (I'd be particularly interested to hear from any of my colleagues but I'm open to thoughts from anyone).

The Left's Disregard for Truth

Heard about Lena Dunham?  I hadn't.  Apparently she's an actress (HBO, etc.) and leftist activist.  She wrote a book wherein she claims that she was raped by a prominent Republican named "Barry" while in college at Oberlin (in Ohio--my wife and I went to a Shakespearean play there when in college).  I know a guy who once taught there--it is a bastion of leftist indoctrination.

Well, journalist John Nolte has been investigating the matter.  After all, if Barry is still out there, he's likely to rape again.  If Barry is not out there, then a man named Barry who used to go to the school and is now being regarded with suspicion will be exonerated.

Turns out that there's just no evidence that Barry--as described by Dunham--exists (if we can trust Nolte which seems plausible).  Read the whole thing, but in case you don't, I'll provide below what I take to be an excellent example of the left's disregard for truth in favor or their narrative.  What follows is truly amazing (but not at all surprising).

Setup: Nolte wants to go to the radio station on campus, since "Barry" allegedly hosted a show called Real Talk with Jimbo (according to Dunham's book).  He asks to check the archive to search for any evidence that there was such a show.

The conversation that ensues when put in contact with the station manager is telling:

Why the Left Will Not Admit the Threat of Radical Islam

Mav-Phil

Why the Left Will Not Admit the Threat of Radical Islam

My philo cronies and I were discussing this over Sunday breakfast.  Why don't leftists -- who obviously do not share the characteristic values and beliefs of Islamists -- grant what is spectacularly obvious to everyone else, namely, that radical Islam poses a grave threat to what we in the West cherish as civilization, which includes commitments to free speech, open inquiry, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom to reject religion, and so on?   Why do leftists either deny the threat or downplay its gravity?

Here is a quickly-composed  list of ten related reasons based on my own thinking and reading and on the contributions of my table mates Peter Lupu and Mike Valle.  A work in progress.  The reasons are not necessarily in the order of importance.