There are no such things as sexual deviations. If something happens sexually, it must be part of the natural spectrum; if it is part of the natural spectrum, it cannot be considered either abnormal or unnatural, even if it is relatively uncommon; but as it turns out to be so much more common hence quite natural.
~ Dr. Benjamin Wiker, on Kinsey’s “Human Sexuality in the Human Male” (1948)
Today’s essay continues my review series of Dr. Wiker’s book, “10 Books that Screwed up the World and 5 Others that didn’t Help” (Regnery, 2008). Here I will combine my critique of Kinsey’s work in light of a recent Supreme Court case, “Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana” (June 25, 2008) that outrageously overruled a Louisiana state statute giving the death penalty to men who rape children under age 12 as a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” provision of the Constitution.
Coincidentally, Dr. Michael Savage, my favorite radio talk show host and a bona fide conservative intellectual, Monday on his radio program said that “Kinsey was a sexual pervert who made up his own data.” Dr. Savage, as usual, is right on point.
Kinsey’s one-man sexual revolution of the late 1940s lobbied and received academic legitimacy to render normal and to promote the vilest sexual ideas imaginable including, pedophilia, child rape, sadomasochism and bestiality.
With such pernicious ideas having the stamp of scientific authority, Kinsey’s perversities traversed through American society like strains of a deadly virus. Despite promising vaccines, Kinsey’s evil ideas on human sexuality mutated and transformed to influence and vex each subsequent generation until this day.
SCOTUS majority rapes children again?
You may query, dear reader: How does a book that Kinsey wrote in 1948, 60 years ago, on human sexuality affect the judicial philosophy of the highest court in America in 2008? I’m glad you asked.
Last week, SCOTUS.org (Supreme Court of the United States) cited in the case Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana that it is unconstitutional to require the death penalty for the crime of raping a child, despite an existing Louisiana state statute that protects child rape victims.
In a majority opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court applied the tortured reasoning that since the rape victim lived, nor was death intended, therefore capital punishment for that crime violates the Eighth Amendment. (Talk about blaming the victim!)
Another of Justice Kennedy’s justifications for such draconian measures as overruling the Constitution is that the child victim will be required, possibly on more than one occasion, to retell the crime, forcing on the child “a moral choice” that the youngster is not mature enough to make. “The way the death penalty here involves the child victim in its enforcement can compromise a decent legal system,” Justice Kennedy wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito, rejecting the Kennedy majority opinion proclaiming a “national consensus” against the death penalty for one who rapes a child, argued that the emphasis is misplaced by pointing out that only six states now have such laws. Alito reasoned that additional states might have had laws on the books giving the death penalty to child rapists long ago if the Supreme Court in 1977 case Coker v. Georgia hadn’t overruled the execution for raping an adult.
Alito rightly theorized that in the pro-defendant climate of the 1970s many state legislators had “good reason to fear” that they never could pass such a law. The expansive dicta in that case, Alito also pointed out, were not even upheld by all the justices that voted with the majority in Coker v. Georgia. Thirty-one years since that case, Alito added, state courts have read the Coker opinion in its broadest interpretation, “stunting legislative consideration” of capital murder in cases where there is a child victim.
Kinsey’s kinder [children] and SCOTUS
Dr. Wiker, particularly in his thoughtful critique of Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s work, “Human Sexuality in the Human Male,” said that we find “the belief that our natural state is one of amoral sexual extravaganza; the evolutionary reduction of human beings to the level of animals; the adept use of science to mask propaganda; the attack on the Judeo-Christian understanding of male, female, marriage and family.”
Wiker further commented that “even more than Rousseau or Mead, Kinsey’s revolution was intensely personal, a revolution rooted in his own epic sexual perversity. He represents, in sterling coin, the evil that results from attempting to change the world to match one’s character, rather than changing oneself to match the deep moral order written into human nature.”
Here is where the recent child rape case embraces the sexual perversity and nihilism of a Dr. Kinsey. Wiker writes:
One can barely stand to read the sections of Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” on the repeated raping of babies and small children. What makes it so thoroughly nauseating is the high-sounding pretence to scientific objectivity. It all appears hauntingly like the Nazi researchers’ detached, objective accounts of their experiments on living victims. Both, no doubt, yielded real data, and in both we are faced with a science twisted to purposes that destroy the humanity of victim and perpetrator, all in the name of human progress.
How is it, therefore, that Kinsey’s “kinder” (German for “children”) are coming home to roost in the august and sacred halls of SCOTUS? (Please excuse the mixed metaphor.) Wiker answers that question in the concluding chapter on Kinsey:
Kinsey’s pseudo-science became foundational for the sexual revolution, used both in courts and classrooms to push a limitless sexual revolution that began in the 1960s and through which we are still living. … It will not be complete until it extinguishes all opposition, the greatest of which is Christianity. Once again, we see atheism at the root of rebellion.
Instead of Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose sophistic opinion was merely channeling Dr. Kinsey, enter defendant Patrick Kennedy, who ironically (and fittingly) shares a surname with Justice Kennedy. Could this despicable child rapist just have easily written this infamous opinion exonerating himself and giving fellow child molesters and rapists across America the green light to destroy the lives of as many children as they can get away with?
However, there is one more man I will include in this triumvirate of infamy who could have written the majority decision removing the death penalty for child rapists. You guessed it, dear reader, that villain Dr. Alfred Kinsey.
In June 1939, on the eve of World War II, France ended its practice of public capital punishment by the guillotine not because it was unusual, because beheadings in one form or another had existed in France and in other countries throughout the world for hundreds and thousands of years.
Admittedly, it is arguable that the guillotine was “cruel,” and there is the rub with liberal activist judges. They ignore the contraction “and” in the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” It is a two-part test founded in morality, not positive law, whereby many judges use their own personal policy preferences and prejudices to ignore the “unusual” clause and make the Eighth Amendment a one-part test.
The result: the judge arrogantly queries himself – is this punishment cruel? If “yes,” case closed, child rapist gets freed from the ultimate punishment.