This post by Clayton Cramer, while generally on track, contains one of the more idiotic allegations that I’ve ever read. Mr. Cramer apparently believes that there is some sort of “homosexual dominance of the legal system.”
No discussion by me; no attack; no “fisking.” It’s not worth it. But let us agree that when one claims that a particular minority group — a group that constitutes, say, 2-3% of the population — “dominates” this or that branch of government, one is already on thin ice. When one so claims without even deigning to cite any evidence, one has actually fallen through the ice. Which is not good (if you have to ask).
(Or, to put it in more graphic terms, substitute “homosexual” with “Jew” and see where you end up.)
I hope Clayton Cramer reconsiders.
See also Volokh, whose post I fully endorse. Mr. Cramer’s “update,” which purports to respond to Volokh’s criticism, reminds me of Homer Simpson standing at the bottom of a six foot hole in the ground and declaring, “I know! I’ll dig myself out!”
“But let us agree that when one claims that a particular minority group — a group that constitutes, say, 2-3% of the population — “dominates” this or that branch of government, one is already on thin ice.”
I claim that the richest 2.4% [1] of Americans dominate the executive, judical, and legislative branches.
[1] 200,000$ pa by the 2000 cencus.
von:
I agree with you (as usual). Mr. Cramer—whose posts I frequently like—should re-consider. I do have a problem with your methodology, however. Let’s take this statement: “Criminals are responsible for most crime in the United States. Although it’s possible to rehabilitate some if not most criminals, others require incarceration.” The statement is mild and tautological. Now replace the world “criminals” either with “homosexuals” or “Jews”. The statement becomes wrong, inflammatory, and even insane. All that’s really learned by the exercise is that it’s possible to come up with inflammatory statements by replacing its nouns.
To repeat I think Mr. Cramer is wrong here. Replace the phrase “homosexual dominance of the legal system” with the phrase “dominance of the legal system by sexual libertarians” and you’ve got a phrase that is at least to me is obviously true rather than being bigoted. Justice Kennedy, for example, is almost certainly a sexual libertarian and influential if not dominant in the American legal system (it’s still fallacious but stronger—hey, what do you expect I’m still waking up). IMO this is what Mr. Cramer should have said. If anything.
Cramer would have been more accurate to say “sexual libertarians,” no doubt, but Cramer hasn’t been making enemies on Usenet and the Web for more than ten years over sexual libertarianism. He’s had this thing against gay people ever since I first encountered him in the early 90s.