Journal of the
Family Research Institute
Founded 1982

Judge Buchmeyer: A Liar

Vol. 19 No. 5
Sep 2004


A tantalizing mix of recent headlines

Louisville, KY: Twenty-two years ago, Paul Spina married Sharon Hays, a wealthy woman. Last year he went to Thailand and got his penis mutilated so he now resembles a woman. Sharon wants an annulment on the grounds that Kentucky prohibits same-sex marriage. Just how far does ‘in sickness and in health' go? What right has anyone to mutilate a nitwit or a nitwit to claim another's property? (Omaha World Herald 7/7/04)

Missouri: 71% of voters said ‘yes' to an amendment to the state constitution barring gay marriage. When able to vote on gay rights, a majority has never said ‘bring them on.' When it comes to gay marriage, about 70% say ‘no.' ( Associated Press , 8/5/04)

Oklahoma: Passed a law banning recognition of all gay adoptions no matter where contracted. ( Advocate 6/8/04)

Massachusetts: 40% of adopted children in Massachusetts have gone to gay and lesbian families, according to Dem. State Sen. Therese Murphy. (Quoted by Stephen Baskerville, Washington Times 7/12-18/04)


When the U.S. Supreme Court legalized sodomy in Texas in 2003, it finally fulfilled the wishes of Federal Judge Jerry Buchmeyer. On the Web you will find many references to Judge Buchmeyer, but he is best known for Baker v. Wade , in which he ruled that the Texas law against homosexual sex was unconstitutional. In that same decision Buchmeyer criticized Dr. Paul Cameron, chairman of FRI, as having misrepresented evidence.

Buchmeyer was later overturned by the 5 th Circuit meeting en banc (that is, with all the Circuit judges ruling jointly) by a vote of 9-7. Judge Thomas Reavley held that the Supreme Court's summary affirmance of the lower court in the Doe case from Virginia was controlling. As a result, the right to privacy did not include a right to engage in sodomy and the equal protection argument could not be used because homosexuals never had been held to be a suspect classification. Writing for the majority, Reavley said the court would not “decide the morality of sexual conduct for the people of Texas” and rejected the equal protection argument because the law was:

directed at certain conduct, not at a class of people. Though the conduct be the desire of the bisexually or homosexually inclined, there is no necessity that they engage in it. The statute affects only those who choose to act in the manner prescribed.

This Family Research Report [FRR] deals with this issue for two reasons. First, to our knowledge, the citation above is the last major court decision that explicitly acknowledged that homosexual behavior was voluntary — a choice by those who enjoy it, rather than done out of some sort of ‘necessity.' This latter justification, for instance, formed the basis of the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which invalidated American sodomy laws. Secondly, because Buchmeyer's criticism of Dr. Cameron is so widespread and quoted still, we thought you would find FRI's rebuttal informative.

Buchmeyer a ‘Liberal's Liberal'

The Texas Human Rights Foundation (a gay-rights group) recently crowed that its suit against the Texas anti-sodomy law was heard in the perfect venue: “Luckily, the case was assigned to Jerry Buchmeyer, an unusually liberal federal district judge for Texas,…” 1 Indeed.

Buchmeyer had also ruled that the Public library could not be banned from stocking Heather's Two Mommies, that minors' rights were violated by curfews, and that gay and girlie establishments were protected under the first Amendment. Of particular significance, Buchmeyer wrote a regular column, Et Cetera , which humorously pointed out the gaffes and contradictions that occurred in Texas courtrooms.

History Of Sodomy Laws

Like many states, Texas started out with capital punishment for homosexual conduct. By 1854 the penalty was limited to fines or imprisonment. The penalties for homosexual activity varied over time, but in 1971 ( Buchanan v. State) the Court of Criminal Appeals decided that surveillance of enclosed and locked toilet stalls was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. So in Texas, you could do ‘whatever' inside a locked toilet stall (but not in your locked home!).

In 1983, the courts also created a right of privacy in enclosed booths in peep stores. When a challenge to the anti-sodomy law reached Buchmeyer's court, conviction of homosexual activity in Texas resulted in no more than a $200 fine.

The history of sodomy laws has been tracked by George Painter, a pro-gay historian. Each state's history of such laws — from a pro-homosexual perspective that wants to legalize homosexual sex in restrooms, with the underaged, and for prisoners — is available on the Web under Painter's name [California is a particularly nauseating example].

Painter details 29 cases over the course of Texas jurisprudence in which the ages and relationships of those caught in homosexual activity involved an important legal milestone. Of the 29, 48% concerned men having sex with other men; 41% concerned men having sex with boys (2 of these were fathers caught having sex with their sons — one of whom was adopted; one of the fathers was a school counselor having sex with 2 boys), and 10% involved boys having sex with other boys.

For Illinois, 12 rulings were detailed: 7 (58%) involved men having sex with boys (one policeman, one music teacher with students, one man with his employee, one 67 year old man and a 9 year old boy [who ratted on him because he was dumped for another boy]), and 5 involved man-to-man contact.

For California (the last state to execute a man for sodomy [in 1801]), 79 rulings were detailed: 47% between men, 44% men with boys (including a public school teacher with 2 boys, a Catholic Priest with 3 boys, and a father with his son), 2 boy-on-boy cases, a woman-woman case, and 4 cases of man-woman sodomy.

Thus, for these 3 states, 47% of the 120 cases concerned man-to-man and 45% involved man-to-boy homosexual sex. Even though these cases were selected by a pro-homosexual investigator, the strong tilt toward the underaged by homosexual practitioners is evident.

California's history is illustrative in another way. Of the 79 cases, 24% concerned the ‘right' to have sex in public restrooms, and many of the others with the right to have sex in peep-show booths, or for prisoners to indulge in homosexuality. Victory for homosexuals in restrooms came in 1962 when the California Supreme Court said that:

Man's constitutionally protected right of personal privacy not only abides in him within his own castle but cloaks him when as a member of the public he is temporarily occupying a room — including a toilet stall — to the extent that it is offered to the public for private, however transient, individual use.

By this reasoning, the court elevated the act of sex in a public toilet into a right . Soon thereafter it made solicitation for sodomy yet another right.

Federal Judges Do What They Want

Federal judges appear to say whatever they wish, and create whatever ‘facts' they desire. Judge Guido Calabresi of the Second Circuit, and former dean of Yale Law School , compared the election of President Bush to the appointments of Mussolini and Hitler: “In a way that occurred before but is rare in the United states… somebody came to power as a result of the illegitimate acts of a legitimate institution that had the right to put somebody in power. That is what the Supreme Court did in Bush v. Gore . It put somebody in power.” “The reason I emphasize that is because that is exactly what happened when Mussolini was put in by the king of Italy.” Calabresi said the same about Hindenburg's installation of Hitler. 2

Calabresi also allowed a working mother to file a discrimination suit without any evidence of discrimination because 3 “it takes no special training to discern stereotyping when someone claims that a woman cannot be a good mother and work long hours… if she has little ones at home.”

Buchmeyer Follows Suit

At least since Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, ‘radical egalitarians' and leftists of all stripes have felt little compunction to let the means justify their ‘noble ends.' Leftists lie, cheat, rob banks, or sacrifice lives — whatever it takes. Judge Buchmeyer fits this mold. He modified one of Dr. Cameron's “quotes” and concocted another. He then contended that Cameron had compared non-delinquent non-homosexuals with delinquent homosexuals in his court testimony — a flat out misrepresentation.

Buchmeyer said in the Baker v. Wade case that: 4

“(i) his sworn statement that “homosexuals are approximately 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population” is a total distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies — which, as is obvious to anyone who reads the report, concerns data from a non-representative sample of delinquent homosexuals (and Dr. Cameron compares this group to college and non-college heterosexuals);

(ii) his sworn statement that “homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals” is based upon the same distorted data — and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmour. (553 F. Supp. 1121 at 1130 n.18.)”

But in Cameron's first affidavit (of two) to Judge Buchmeyer on the issue, 5 citing Dr. William Simon's testimony, Cameron said:

“Dr. Simon testifies that the research shows that homosexuals are in trouble with the law ‘less often than would be true of the general population.' In fact, the research shows exactly the opposite. Dr. Simon does not explain what ‘research' he is referring to. The published data on which Dr. Simon worked indicates that homosexuals are 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population. The Kinsey Data, in which Dr. Simon was involved, showed that a greater number of homosexuals are involved in illegal activities full time. The overwhelming weight of the ‘research' in the area indicates that homosexuality is disproportionately associated with criminal activity. The Saghir and Robbins study, and the 1978 Bell and Weinberg study both indicate that homosexuals are more inclined to be in trouble with the law than is the heterosexual community.” (pp. 3-4)

Judge Buchmeyer added “approximately” to Dr. Cameron's sworn statement and lifted the phrase “homosexuals are approximately 43 times more apt to commit crimes than is the general population” from its context. He then asserted that Cameron's statement was “a total distortion of the Kinsey data upon which he relies.”

Dr. Cameron had actually criticized the Kinsey data, not “relied” on it. He said:

“I have also reviewed the testimony of Dr. Marmor as given to the trial court. On page 7, lines 11 through 23, Dr. Marmor states that the Kinsey research has been confirmed by various surveys in this country and abroad. He states that the other surveys confirmed the findings of the Kinsey research. Dr. Marmor's testimony is simply not true. Numerous other studies and surveys which have been done do not confirm the Kinsey research. In fact, a study which I conducted and supervised directly disagrees with the Kinsey research. The Kinsey survey has been questioned both because of its method and its results. The findings by the Kinsey survey have not been confirmed by any other recognized survey or study.” (p. 4)

Because the June 23, 1983 affidavit was done hurriedly (Dr. Cameron then lived in Lincoln, Nebraska, and had to write it while doing FRI survey research in Los Angeles; personal computers were not widespread at the time), he was asked to do a more complete affidavit and include exhibits. The second affidavit was signed in Denver on October 12, 1983 (while involved with more FRI survey research). Judge Buchmeyer's opinion is dated April 3, 1984, so he had ample time to examine both affidavits. In the second affidavit, Dr. Cameron wrote (p. 5):

“I call the Court's attention to p. 485 in the Kinsey Data work (Attachment 4) vs . p. 51 in the same volume (Attachment 5). Notice that for both white non-delinquent gays and lesbians, proportionately many more homosexuals than the “mainly heterosexual” controls were judged by the Kinsey group as being primarily engaged in criminal occupations ( e.g. , 0.37% of ‘mainly normal' white males vs . 1.8% of homosexual non-delinquent white gays [49X more criminal]; 0.056% of ‘mainly normal white females vs . 1.2% of white lesbians [21X more criminal]; et cetera).” [emphasis is in the original]

The material to which Dr. Cameron was referring was the ‘last publication' of the original Kinsey surveys — one meant to ‘clear up' questions about the data and the methodology used to obtain it . 6 Examination of p. 51 of Gebhard and Johnson reveals that 0 of 4,688 white college males and 0.3% of 766 non-college white males for a total of 0.0367% of 5,454 white non-homosexual males were categorized by the Kinsey investigators as having an occupational status of “criminal” (see Figure 1). This compared to p. 485: 1.8% of 945 white non-delinquent homosexual males who were categorized the same way. Comparatively, 0.018 is 49 times the frequency of 0.000367.

Of females in the Kinsey data, 0 of 4,348 white college females and 3 of 1,028 white non-college females for a total of 0.056% of 5,376 were classified as ‘criminal' by the Kinsey investigators. For the white non-delinquent lesbians the proportion was 1.2% of 259. Again, the relative comparison yields that white non-delinquent lesbians were classified as ‘criminal' by the Kinsey investigators at 21 times the rate of non-homosexual females.

If non-whites are included in the calculation, the comparisons become more disparate. For males they become 0.036% ‘criminal' for non-homosexuals vs . 2.4% ‘criminal' for non-delinquent homosexuals — 67 times greater. For females they become 0.054% for non-homosexuals vs . 4.6% for non-delinquent homosexuals — 86 times greater.

Overall, 5 of 11,230 or 0.045% of non-homosexuals vs . 39 of 1,344 or 2.9% of non-delinquent homosexuals were ‘criminal;' a rate 54 times greater.

Swearing Over Statements

Now consider Buchmeyer's other assertion, namely “(ii) his sworn statement that ‘homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals' is based upon the same distorted data — and, the Court notes, is directly contrary to other evidence presented at trial besides the testimony of Dr. Simon and Dr. Marmour.”

This quote was manufactured. Neither of Dr. Cameron's sworn statements to Judge Buchmeyer contains this quotation. Instead, Cameron stated on June 23, 1983:

“Dr. Marmor states on page 21, line 21, that there is no evidence whatever that homosexuals are more inclined to sexually abuse children than heterosexuals. At this point he did not give his opinion but stated that there is “no evidence.” In fact, there is a great deal of evidence which shows that homosexuality is directly related to sexual abuse of children and that homosexuals are more inclined to abuse children than are heterosexuals.” (p. 6) Indeed, recall the court cases summarized by Painter earlier in this article.

Buchmeyer claimed that Cameron made a “sworn statement” about child molestation that does not appear in the two affidavits delivered to him. Judge Buchmeyer knew the meaning of a “sworn statement.” Odd for a man with an eagle eye for discrepancies in the courtroom.


Why did Judge Buchmeyer attack Dr. Cameron? We may never know for sure. Certainly, Buchmeyer appears highly sympathetic to the gay agenda. He is also hostile to traditional views about homosexuality. Beyond that, one can only speculate. Nevertheless, Buchmeyer seems — as with many gay activists — to have recognized the pointed danger to the homosexual movement of letting homosexuality be cast in a negative scientific light, all the more so when those scientific facts might be enshrined in the public record of a major legal trial. He apparently felt the danger was great enough to justify lying about Dr. Cameron. And even though Judge Buchmeyer was later repudiated by the full Circuit Court, his damning remarks have been quite successful at suppressing the scientific truth and harming Dr. Cameron's reputation in many other venues. Let us hope others will begin to see through Buchmeyer's charade.


1. Texas Human Rights Foundation, 6/19/04.
2. Wall Street Journal , 6/23/04, editorial, p. A16.
3. Denver Post 7/21/04, 2A.
4. Baker v. Wade , 106 Federal Rules Decisions 526 (N.D. Texas, 1985).
5. June 23, 1983.
6. Gebhard PH & Johnson AB ( The Kinsey data: marginal tabulations of the 1938-1963 interviews conducted by the institute for sex research . Philadelphia: Saunders, 1979.

Another ‘Strike’ Against Single Parenthood

The young children of single mothers do not usually say much about the hardships they face. Many of these children, in fact, say little about anything at all.

The delayed speech development of many children being reared by single mothers recently received attention from researchers at the Yale School of Medicine and the University of Massachusetts at Boston. Drawing on  data collected from 1,605 children born at the Yale-New Haven Hospital , the authors of the new study identify  a number of social contexts in which children's expressive language development is likely to be delayed. Those contexts include living in a bilingual home, living in poverty, and living in a single-parent home.

Among children living in single-parent homes, an elevated percentage in every age group manifested delayed expressive language development. Among children 12 to 17 months old, 35% of those in single-parent homes had  delayed language development, compared to just 20% of those in two-parent homes. Among children 18 to 23 months, 32% of those in single-parent homes were diagnosed with delayed language development, compared to 18%  of those in two-parent families. Among children 24 to 29 months old, 30% of those in single-parent homes had  delayed language development, compared to 19% in two-parent homes. And among children 30 months or older, 29% of those in single-parent homes evinced delayed language development, compared to 19% of those in two-parent  homes. 

Although sophisticated data analysis registers statistical significance only for the 18-to-23-month-old children, the elevated incidence of language delay among children reared in single-parent  homes is clearly evident and should stir concern. In any case, it is precisely the 18-to-23-month-old age group that the Yale and Massachusetts scholars have in view when they note that children manifesting poor expressive language development “have low pro-social peer scores and, in addition, are low in imitation/play, attention skills, and the overall domain of Competence.” “Poor expressive language domain,” the researchers further remark, “may not be an isolated problem and appears to have very early  linkages to the development of social/emotional and behavioral competencies and problems.”

To underscore this point, the authors of the new study cite earlier studies indicating that “even as adolescents, these children  [with delayed expressive language development] continue to manifest poor academic skills.”

Sarah McCue Horwitz et al., “Language Delay in a Community Cohort of Young Children,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 42 [2003]: 932-940.


Death Leaching from the Blue States

Missing children stalk the West. What the Pope calls the ‘culture of death' has engulfed Europe — its birth rate has fallen below likely recovery. The birth rate is also falling in the United States. However, recent demographic events indicate that the states still function as a social laboratory — and offer a ray of hope.

Let me explain. Polls show that the electorate is rapidly taking sides and digging in its heels — the ‘uncommitted middle' is shrinking. Today, most Republicans believe in God (He made us and is watching over us), are against abortion (nothing is more precious than a child), and against gay rights (the destructive should not be accorded the same status as the necessary and productive). In contrast, Democrats are primarily secular (life just happened, all laws are man-made), for abortion rights (desires of adults come first), and for gay rights (the principle of equality trumps what are ultimately ‘trivial' differences).

Democrat philosophy includes components of embarrassment about the success of the country (there must be punishment for so great a prosperity), as well as anti-human sentiments (man is raping the planet). Pushing policies that will force the country into decline, they are pessimistic — it will require considerable sacrifice to reduce prosperity. Republican philosophy includes components of triumphalism (we must show others the democratic way) and a belief that God blesses the thankful who work hard. They are optimistic because ‘He will provide for those He loves.'

Those who vote for these philosophies also express them in their own life choices — including whether to have children. Nothing is more optimistic than having children, and nothing predicts darkness more certainly than their dearth (or death). Does the pessimistic Democrat philosophy result in lower, and the optimistic Republican perspective in higher, birthrates?

The National Center for Health Statistics [NCHS] just released 1 state-by-state birthrates for 1990-2002. I indexed the philosophy of a state by the party of the candidate for whom it voted in the presidential elections of 1992, 1996, and 2000. If it voted Democrat in each, it scored 0, if it voted Republican once it scored 1, if it voted Republican thrice it scored 3. States were labeled ‘G' for gay rights if they had passed at least 4 statewide protections for homosexual practitioners (see Figures 2 and 3). 2

The correlations are not perfect — other factors influence birth rates — but they are very strong (see Figure 1). The growth states are mainly Republican (the green states) and the dying states are mainly Democrat (the gray states). The rapidly dying states had an average voting score of 0.7 (that is, only 0.7 away from a perfect Democrat ‘0'), the dying states averaged 0.95, the growing states averaged 1.75, and the rapidly growing states had an average score of 2.3 (0.7 away from a perfect Republican ‘3').

Gay rights was strongly correlated with demographic decline: 5 (50%) of the 10 most rapidly dying states and 6 (32%) of the 19 dying states have gay rights (politically, states with gay rights averaged a voting score of 0.1). No growing state has gay rights.

Homosexual activity was a major element of ‘the way of death' about which Moses and St. Paul wrote. Is it a coincidence that gay marriage commenced in a dying state, or that 11 of the 13 states with gay rights laws are dying (Minnesota and New Mexico have ‘average' birth rates)?

John Kerry is from a dying state, Bush from a rapidly growing one. Kerry registers as the most liberal Senator and says he wants to more closely align with Europe. Bush is openly Christian, more an independent ‘cowboy' in foreign affairs, and a tepid supporter of pro-natalist views. Given the growing tilt toward demographic decline, this election could potentially tilt the birthrate one way or the other.

1. Sutton PD, Mathews TJ. Trends in characteristics of births by State: United States, 1990, 1995, and 2000-2002. National Vital Statistics Reports ; vol 52, no 19. May 10, 2004. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
2. According to as of 5/5/04.

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher
Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)


Family Research Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return to top