Is it inherently problematic for a Dem politician or nominee to be in the closet?

[ruggerson]

Politicians in America in 2010, almost without exception, acknowledge (and in many cases highlight and publicize) their family members. Can you imagine Barack Obama making his historic run for the Presidency without all the publicity and participation of Michele and their daughters?

In so doing, in acknowledging the family construct of their adult lives, politicians are conveying key messages to their constituencies: I am like you. My values are similar to yours. My families' needs and desires are the same as yours.

Similarly, US Supreme Court nominees in modern times have also ubiquitously highlighted their families. John Roberts had his wife and children front and center at the podium when Bush announced his nomination, as did Samuel Alito. Who can forget Clarence Thomas' wife sitting behind him day after day during the Anita Hill controversy?

If heterosexual families are to be so universally acknowledged and publicized, then don't the times and our beliefs in equality dictate that the families of gay political public figures receive the same public identification and scrutiny?

I have no way of knowing if Elena Kagan is indeed a lesbian. I do not know her personally and she has never commented on it publicly that I know of. But, if she is about to become Obama's second choice for the highest court in the land, wouldn't it be a bit bizarre, if in 2010, her answer and the administration's answer to this were to be a dismissive: "no comment."?

To those of you who say it doesn't matter, I disagree with you profoundly. It does indeed matter. If we let a public figure get away with trying to hide who she is as a human being, we are being complicit in the underlying belief system that there is something wrong with being gay. We are taking part in the rightwing worldview which says that heterosexual families can be identified and celebrated in the media while gay families cannot and shouldn't be.

As a party we putatively support gay rights. Our platform calls for equality under the law.

Should we not act as if we actually believe the words we espouse?

If Elena Kagan is indeed gay, and does have a life partner, it matters because she is a public figure serving our country and her family life and religious views have bearing on her possible nomination to the court and the kinds of cases which might come before her as a future Justice on the highest court in the land.

If she is gay and wishes to remain in the closet, that is her prerogative, but she should then seek a profession where she is not about to become front page news as a public figure in every newspaper in the nation.

If she is not gay, she should simply say so and end the speculation.

This is not about her sexual life. This is about the structure and foundation of her adult family life. This is about who she is as a human being.

If we, as liberals and progressives, want to keep moving this country forward, then there really is no place in the closet for our public figures. Their families should be given the exact same media exposure and analysis given to the families of heterosexual public figures.

To paraphrase one of the most famous lesbians in our history: "A family is a family is a family."

It's about time we started living what we preach.

[scheming daemons]

1. Where does the speculation come from?

Are we at a point where we speculate that every single person over a certain age is gay?


What is the basis for this OP?


I have no idea if she is gay or not. I don't really care. I think she'd make an excellent justice regardless of her sexual orientation.

[ruggerson]

3. speculation is all over the web

[scheming daemons]

86. Yeah... and a google search turns up a bunch of blog posts like yours

The speculation is based on two simple facts, and absolutely nothing else:

She's single.

She's 50 years old.




You are engaging in the same stereotyping that everyone else is concerning Ms. Kagan. The "speculation all over the web" is based on itself. You're speculating based on someone else who is speculating which is based on someone else speculating and so on...


A bunch of people start "is she gay?" discussions, then they use the fact that there are large numbers of such discussions as evidence of "where there's smoke, there's fire".

[nickinSTL]

2. while I get the point you're making

I'm not sure I entirely agree.

While politicians often use their families in their campaigns, I'm not sure it should be made a requirement of public service. If a politician wished to protect their family as much as possible from media scrutiny, I believe they should have that right. If a gay politician (not naming any names, just in general) wished to protect their family from that media scrutiny, I think that is absolutely understandable, considering how harsh that media spotlight can be.

[ruggerson]

4. But there is media scrutiny whether we like it or not

even when a politician or nominee asks the media to declare their spouse and children off limits - we still know who the spouse and children are in the first place. Should a gay public person be permitted to erase that entire zone of who they are? There are deeply homophobic implications to that, if we find it acceptable. It's a huge double standard.

[pnwmom]

21. How do you know Justice Souter wasn't a straight person who wanted

his privacy respected?

[ruggerson]

24. For all I know he could have been

he could also be asexual. It's irrelevant to my point. The rumors flying around Kagan are that she has a longtime partner - that it's an "open secret." If so, we should know about it. She's a public figure who may be our next USSC justice. If she was married to a guy, we would know. The media should report on the family structure of gay public figures just like it does on straight ones.

Souter was a single man. But if he got married, we would have heard all about it.

[pnwmom]

38. We don't know that Souter didn't have a partner, male or female.

And we don't know that about Kagan, either. Rumors have flown about both of them, and about Sotomayor, because they are single.

If Kagan IS gay and she comes out now, chances are her nomination would be filibustered. Do you seriously think we'd be better off then?

[WeDidIt]

5. Only if Glenn Greenwald declares they are badwrong. n/t

[ruggerson]

9. can't speak for anyone else but myself

while Kagan is not my first choice, I would happily support her nomination, as I tend to think, based on the evidence, that she would make a good, progressive justice.

The OP reflects my view on the public handling of her family life only. By both her and the WH.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DevonRex]

6. When, where and how a person comes out should be up to that person

UNLESS they're in the business of hurting the fight for civil rights for GLBTs or in the business of telling GLBTs that being gay is sinful and/or that they can and should be "cured."

[ruggerson]

8. In the private world, I would agree

But those who enter the public arena CHOOSE to do so. No one forces them. And since we live in an age where the media scrutinizes the families of public figures (and will continue to do so), it is a huge, deeply homophobic double standard to magically erase the family structures of only public figures who happen to be gay.

[DevonRex]

16. You know that the right wing would like to out Kagan, right? They'd like

to out all gay Democrats, in public or private life. Why should a gay person have to make some sort of public declaration? Straight people don't have to make such declarations. And if a straight person DOES declare they're straight in public it's often because of homophobia.

People know I'm straight because of how I live my life, without me having to announce it to the world. If I did, the people who know me would say, "Well DUH." It's quite possible that Kagan is just living her life and doesn't feel the need to make any public announcement, either. And if she did, the people who know her would also say, "Well, DUH."

[ruggerson]

22. You're blurring the lines between public and private people

if a public person wishes to hold a position that has enormous influence over our daily lives, the very least we should know about their family life is if they are partnered and have kids.

We do it consistently for straight public figures - why not gay ones?

[DevonRex]

25. Kagan will become a public figure if she is indeed nominated

and the media will do what they always do. We don't know what Kagan will do. Will she have her partner at the hearings? Perhaps so, perhaps not.

You see, your assumption is that Kagan will choose to keep her private life private. We don't know what she will do. And your assumption is that the media won't delve into her private life. I don't know why they would restrain themselves now.

[ruggerson]

26. Read all the news about this subject

It's not my assumptions. It's what has already occurred.

The WH even felt compelled to issue a "denial" of storts to a story on CBS' website.

[DevonRex]

30. Unless I've missed something, she hasn't been nominated yet.

Until she IS nominated this is her business and that of her partner.

[pnwmom]

39. I don't think that's necessary to know. Some people like to parade their connections.

Some don't.

[donco6]

7. Hiding makes it sound dirty or wrong.

And until someone can be appointed who is openly gay, then I don't think it really counts. We haven't progressed at all, in that case.

[rocktivity]

14. I don't like the idea of a closeted judge making decisions about gay rights

WOULD she be able to base her decisions on the law? And wouldn't she be vulnerable to being blackmailed?

:shrug:
rocktivity

[HughMoran]

10. So we should pry into people's personal lives and force them to 'out' themselves?

Is that what you are suggesting? People who want to bring their family to the fore can do so, those who wish to keep their personal lives personal should also be allowed to do so. Why force the responsibility upon Elena to change the way we do things in this country - it seems highly unfair to me.

[ruggerson]

12. Identifying a public persons's spouse is "prying?"

In general the media covers the spouse and kids or single status of EVERY heterosexual public figure in DC. That doesn't mean they're "prying."

Identifying a public figure as being partnered with a same sex spouse and having a kid is not "prying." It's just using the same standard for gay public people that is used for straights.

[HughMoran]

15. Your agenda in this post is strange

I'm not playing.

[ruggerson]

18. my "agenda" (interesting choice of words) is for the media to end this "cone of silence"

they complicitly confer upon gay public figures and their families.

All it does is perpetuate homophobia and invisibility.

The underlying message is that it is wrong - something to be hidden.

If Elena Kagan is about to become our next SC Justice, we deserve to know, at the very least, what her family structure looks like. Partnered with two kids would suffice. They don't have to dig deeper than that. Just identify the exact same things they would identify with a straight nominee.

[HughMoran]

20. If they did what you suggest, you'd be up in arms that the media was outing people

to put them at a potential disadvantage - no? Isn't it up to the individual if they want to bring their sexuality/family to the fore? I think so. Are single people allowed to be in public office?

[ruggerson]

23. Actually, I've always been fine with the media "outing" public figures

and have consistently called for it.

The media should make no distinction whatsoever between straight and gay public figures. There should be no double standard.

[pnwmom]

19. How do you know they cover the status of every straight public figure?

How do you know there aren't straight public figures who choose to keep their partners -- or lack of them -- out of the limelight?

[beyurslf]

11. I think it is her choice to come out publicly or not. I would hope that she would do so

if she is gay because living openly in the public is one way to change misconceptions. I do not think she should have to though if she does not want to. That said, she should expect that rumors and stories will continue and people will ask. That happens in public life and she should simply expect it to be true about her if she is on the Court. Movie stars may complain about paparazzi and no privacy, but they knew the game when they started on that career. No whining. Buck up and live with it. If someone wants their private life to be private, then don't live publicly.

[jenmito]

13. Due to the abuse she'd take from the Repubs., I don't think she should introduce her family

(if it includes a woman "life partner") until she's confirmed, at which time she should openly embrace her family, thus angering those who'd be against it and pleasing the rest of us to no end.

If, for example, she introduces only her parents and siblings, for example, it would drive the RWers CRAZY with "suspicion" and it would be obvious if they had specific questions about things like her being against military recruiters on college campuses because of DADT, and her "empathy" towards gay people, but they couldn't come right out and ask her if she's gay. It would be something watching them squirm.

[Hekate]

65. That's my favored scenario, too, Jenmito. nt

[pnwmom]

17. I disagree. I don't think the Supreme Court membership needs to be limited

to those who are out about their sexuality. The First Family all live in the White House together, so it's pretty unavoidable to know about them.

But there is no reason for the private lives of Justices to be brought to the forefront. Whether or not they have families or partners has nothing to do with how good a Justice they might be. Look at Justice Souter. He would probably never have been nominated IF he had been an "out" gay person.

[Dappleganger]

27. Personally, I look forward to the day when the only thing which matters

is if a person can do the job which is set before them, regardless of race, creed, religion, sexuality, faith, etc.

However, I support how people wish to live their own private lives. Whatever their reason for being private, it's not for me to judge.

[left is right]

28. While I agree with you

I think knowing that a nominee is well-loved and loves well in turn (gay or straight) says things about his/her character that are important like empathy and the ability to put another’s need first.

[Dappleganger]

31. personally, I agree with you.

Knowing that a nominee is of that kind of character would help me know it's a good choice.

However, I support those who wish to not make their personal lives a part of that process no matter who they may be.

[pnwmom]

41. Souter was an excellent Justice and we never knew anything about his love life

or lack of one.

[left is right]

45. i have to admit that you are right; he was excellent

but I can’t help believe that scalia is so odious because no one every loved him- yeah I know he is married but we are speaking about fat tony

[pnwmom]

46. And that proves my point. Scalia is ODIOUS despite his public family image.

Anyone, gay or straight, can create an acceptable public persona if that's demanded of them. A policy demanding Kagan and others put their partners to the forefront would just increase the numbers of people like Gov. McGreevey, hiding behind a straight spouse and child.

[Hekate]

66. Ironically, Scalia was loved waaaaay too much by his parents, aunts, uncles...

IIRC, he came from a large family of aunts, uncles, of course his parents and grandparents. But no siblings, and no cousins. He was the only kid for all of them. He was expected to achieve a great deal, and he did and he has.

He is indeed odious, but I think he virtually has some kind of a god-complex from being the object of all that adult adoration and not ever having to compete for and learn how to share family place the way nearly every other child must. And no, he does not seem to have any empathy for those less privileged than himself.

Hekate

[EFerrari]

29. Agreed.

[backscatter712]

32. Assuming she is closeted (that's a big if), it's her business alone.

That said, I gladly voted for Jared Polis - he's openly gay and doesn't make a big deal of it!

[Hekate]

33. Way to kill her prospects in one fell swoop, tyvm. Ideology meet Reality.

Good Lord. This is much too important to invite the Republicans to shoot her down and then let Beck, Limbaugh, Rush, et al smear her in vile terms.

Not to mention how some of the so-called progressives and some in the LGBT community would then review her entire career through the lens of ideological purity and find her wanting.

Is she a public figure entitled to a private life? Is her lack of People Magazine celebrity somehow suspicious?

"If she is not gay, she should simply say so and end the speculation." You've observed the Birthers and their obsessions. How would her saying she's not gay end speculation?

It's about time we stopprd REQUIRING public people to display their families as a prerequisite for office.

As for Elena Kagan, all I hope is that she will never feel the need to defend herself by saying, as Janet Reno did when pressed about her private life, "I'm just an awkward old maid." Bleah.

First things first. Is her background appropriate? Since she's on Obama's short list, yes. Let's get her on the Court, if she is indeed the nominee, and then leave it up to her, as a public person with a private life, to decide what she wants us to know.

Hekate

[ruggerson]

34. that's a pretty bad message to send to gay kids and gay teenagers

We believe in your equality, but hey - hide who you are at all costs if you want to make it to the top. Because, you see, the powers that be are incredibly bigoted so you have to learn to sacrifice your morality on the altar of their prejudice. The bigots set the rules so you have to abide by them.

Hopefully most parents of gay children are trying to instill exactly the opposite.

[pnwmom]

40. It would be worse to watch her nomination get torpedoed because she's gay.

As a member of the Court she would be in an unassailable position to CHANGE the direction of the country in a way that helps all gay people. Once she's confirmed, she could have a powerful, gay-positive influence -- whether or not she ever comes out. I wouldn't want to give up that chance because of worries this might send the wrong message to children.

[donco6]

36. So, if she has a partner, it's OK to sweep her under the rug?

I have no idea if she's gay or not, but if she were, and she had a partner, it would be OK in your book to . . . pretend she didn't?

[Hekate]

64. Nope. I simply believe that people are entitled to a zone of privacy around their families if ...

... they choose. That's not the same as shoving someone in the almighty closet and slamming the door. It gives people a choice.

Locally, we had a judge who was an out lesbian with a spousal partner. Same thing with one of our major non-profits. The mayor in the town next door is a youngish woman who has been single so long that I've begun to idly wonder if she's lesbian, but knowing the women's group that mentored her when she was still in college, she certainly would not be closeted if she is -- and therefore I have a feeling her private life is simply that: private, and not fodder for the newspapers. I'm sure the folks who invite the mayor to Christmas parties know whatever there is to know.

Their sexuality is simply not the first thing you learn about them: in public, their job is.

If we really want to evaluate candidates for high office, we ought to be looking at their public record, and only if it has a direct bearing on their ability to serve in their job, should we inquire into their private lives. Now, Professor Anita Hill came forward with information about nominee Clarence Thomas, and I think his sexual behavior *did* have a bearing on his qualifications to be on the SCOTUS. She did her part; he lied; all the men on the Senate committee sneered at her and sided with him, et voila: Justice Thomas, representing sexual harassers everywhere.

Closets, no. A modicum of privacy by choice, yes.

Hekate

[pnwmom]

42. Exactly. Parading your family should not be a prerequisite for public service.

Or any other kind of service. But that's why a number of gay people have often hidden behind straight spouses.

And what Janet Reno felt she had to do was atrocious.

[pnwmom]

43. delete

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

74. What's intrinsically wrong with shooting her down?

If she failed Obama would pick someone else.

[Hekate]

77. That question doesn't even deserve an answer

[johnaries]

35. If she has neither confirmed nor denied, then she must consider it

a personal matter and nobody's business. If she had denied it and then it was discovered that she was, that would be a different matter. If she has discussed it one way or the other - it's not my business and it's not yours. Or anybody else's.

[Clio the Leo]

37. What if the whole goal is to send a "spy" into the enemy camp so to speak?

The enemy camp in question are the social conservatives on the bench.

I've always been of the opinion that the best place to solve the DADT and DOMA quandries was in the courts ... the same place that the other major civil rights issue was settled (I contend that had it not been for Brown v. Topeka, the '64 and '65 bills would not have passed ... or written for that matter.) If you settle an issue in the Supreme Court, it cannot be overturned .. it cannot be repealed when another party takes control. Cannot be undone except by the court itself. It is virtually set in stone.

If, by keeping her personal life on the DL so that she can make it onto the bench, and in so doing put herself into position to change the course of history ... would it be worth it then?


And thanks for un-muddeling my head. I thought it was Diane Woods who was the subject of this controversy. Now that I know it's Kagan, I am now convinced she has a lock on the nomination. An question we may know the answer to as late as tonight.

[pnwmom]

44. You're assuming that the nominees need to knuckle under to the media's wish that they

parade their partners, spouses, and children.

I don't. I think nominees, gay and straight, should RESIST the media's urgings to put their families on display. Anyone can pretend to have a happy, picture-perfect family or spouse in the run-up to a confirmation hearing. These displays tell the public nothing they need to know.

[ruggerson]

47. while I understand your point, that's the way our media works

in both politics and entertainment.

I guarantee there are almost zero members of Congress who don't include their family biography as part of their pitch to get elected. If they don't the media will do it for them.

What I am advocating is that there not be a double standard when it comes to the public aknowledgement of gay families vs straight ones, given our media culture. They should not render the gay families invisible.

What you are saying is that you don't like our media culture to begin with.

I appreciate and understand that, but we are having two different discussions.

[pnwmom]

48. What makes you think that your policy wouldn't just result in more people

like Gov. McGreevey, attempting to hide behind camera-ready families?

[ruggerson]

50. because what I am suggesting is that we as a country

start living and actualizing our professed beliefs in equal rights.

I am not saying it would be easy or quick - but the best way is to conduct ourselves with integrity and consistency.

Since we can't change the information revolution, we can at least learn how to adapt to its new realities with grace and honesty.

Cultural change will not occur overnight, but if we start living in that reality, we can be moral advocates and agents for that change.

[pnwmom]

54. That's very idealistic, but I think it would only slow cultural change,

not promote it. I'd rather have gay people in positions of power to change things, even if they weren't out.

And someone like Kagan isn't like McGreevey, taking advantage of and hiding behind a made-up family. She's just choosing to keep her public and private personas separate.

[LiberalAndProud]

70. Are you suggesting she should be a martyr to the cause?

I honestly don't know how I feel about this. Is she likely to be asked the question during confirmation hearings? If so, I would expect her to respond truthfully. And the answer wouldn't matter to me. It will be interesting to watch her confirmation hearings to see how this plays out.


If she's not a lesbian, would you hold that against her?

[Hekate]

78. Yeah, martyrdom is so much more special than getting a job done. Personally, I don't think that ...

... martyrdom equals authenticity, nor does authenticity require martyrdom.

Hekate

[ruggerson]

82. Maybe authenticity can go hand in hand with getting the job done

we don't have to live our lives in fearful anticipation of prejudice.

[ruggerson]

81. why would I or anyone else hold that against her?

Very strange response.

[Jennicut]

49. Honestly, this whole "we must know every detail of your entire life"

thing is kind of idiotic to begin with. Having the same "values" as another politician or public figure is so over rated. What people show to the public is never really their entire real personalities anyway. I could care less anymore about it. Just tell me your beliefs and philosophies and that is all I need to know.

[ruggerson]

51. knowing who someone's spouse is

is hardly "we must know every detail of your entire life."

It's fairly common and accepted that we know if Candidate A is married or not and if Nominee B has any kids.

It's a rather humdrum part of their public resume.

[Jennicut]

52. And do my kids and husband define who I am as a person? To a point but not the entire person.

It has gotten to a point where a person's personal life and background seem to be more important then their ideas and beliefs. Honestly, if someone is gay, I don't HAVE to know. Until we reach a time when it is totally accepted by all people it will simply be looked at as more important then their ideas on terrorism, the environment, economic policy, etc. Social issues are important too but that seems to be the issues that are controversial and the hot button ones. They matter. But with everyday life, the economic policies matter more. It just seems like one big game anyway. How many politicians are married and cheating? They stay married to present an image, one that we think we must have. We all need to get over ourselves (well, conservatives anyway)and realize that no one has a perfect life and it is really hard to have a perfect marriage.

[ruggerson]

53. Well of course it's only to a point

I'm just advocating that gay nominees be treated no differently than straight ones.

Any information the press gives us about their family life is just one piece (albeit an interesting clue) of the overall puzzle.

I'm more interested in Kagan's judicial philosophies and in her career highlights than I am in her family. But, if she does have a partner and they have been together for twenty years (both of which we have no way of knowing as it stands now), that's a legitimate piece of the puzzle as well, given the current construct of our media and political culture.

[pnwmom]

59. I'm sure the Rethugs would love it if the media would out her, so they'd

have a reason to block her nomination. And they would. I fail to see the overall gain for us.

[pnwmom]

57. It may be common and or humdrum but it shouldn't be necessary, especially

in the case of an appointed and confirmed member of the judiciary. The members of the Supreme Court have always kept a low profile; they're not supposed to be politicians, trying to sell themselves and their families to a curious public.

[FrenchieCat]

55. I'd love for her to get confirmed

and after taking her seat on the bench, come out!

Then I'd say...take that you Republican Pigs. What ya gonna do now?

[dsc]

56. I am not sure of the answer to this

I guess it matters to me why she isn't being open. Is she protecting her partner? Is she being told not to be open? Is she ashamed? I can understand the first, not so much the second and third.

[pnwmom]

58. What if being open would make her unconfirmable? Because Republicans would

vote to filibuster?

[dsc]

61. I really don't think they would dare

sure in many cases it would help them with their electorates but Brown, Snowe, and Collins, to name three, would be in deep trouble for doing this.

[pnwmom]

63. It wouldn't be overt. They'd find some other reason to stick with the rest

of their party and block her confirmation. They wouldn't have to alienate their constituents if they blamed their votes on something else about her.

[Zenlitened]

60. K&R for a thought-provoking post. - n/t

[woolldog]

62. I think her family life is no one's business

unless she herself chooses to make an issue of it.

If, like a lot of politicians, she chooses to parade her family around with her on camera, talk about them etc then she should be free to do that and it's a legitimate subject of discussion. If she wants to keep her family life private, for whatever reason, I think people should respect that too.

[dumpdabaggers]

67. David Souter

NT

[Prism]

69. Too many straight people just don't get this

And the responses in this thread don't argue against it.

The idea that someone should remain closeted until after they get what they want plays straight into the notion of those "shifty, sneaky gays."

So many damaging stereotypes and cultural oppressions being affirmed here, I don't even know where to begin.

I loved the response to you that framed your question about the LGBT family's place in society as "You're just saying this to hate on Obama, aren't you?!"

No surprise there, either.

[Mass]

71. I just think it is offensive to consider that a woman in her fifties that is not married (or in a

relationship) is necessarily a lesbian. All the articles I have read seem to go in this direction and it reeks sexism and this is what this seems to me. We have seen that for Napolitano (even with Hillary) and others.

This said, if she is a lesbian, she should say it, but if she does not, we should take her at her word.

[slackmaster]

72. Opposing a nominee because you suspect he or she might be closeted makes you a crypto-homophobe

I respect the right of every individual to not speak publicly about private matters.

[PatSnow]

73. It would be nice if she starts a new fashion

where a candidate's sexuality, religious beliefs and the kind of underwear s/he is wearing (remember asking
Clinton "boxers or briefs?") remains just that - personal.

[bigwillq]

75. Hello

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[PatSnow]

90. Thank you

Very kind of you.

[Prism]

79. We're talking about someone's family composition

Which has never ever remained "personal" for straight political figures.

[NJmaverick]

76. Her sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with her abilities as a justice

and SHOULD NEVER entered into the discussion. End of story

[ruggerson]

80. Uh, I never said it did - that's not the point of the OP

reread it.

[David Zephyr]

83. Yes, I think it is inherently problematic because it is being dishonest.

It's lying and it's being deceptive. That's an unhealthy place to be as a person.

It's not whole. It's fractured and it's very, very sad.

[scheming daemons]

85. So... are you saying that Elena Kagan is being dishonest here?

How do you know that she's being dishonest?


Maybe she's gay, maybe she's not.


If she's not.... she's not being "deceptive" at all.

[David Zephyr]

89. Read what I wrote. I have no idea is she's gay or not. How do you know?

Neither you or I have any idea as to her sexual orientation. I think she is qualified and will make a terrific justice just as Sonia Sotomayor is already doing which speaks well for President Obama as to his judicial choices.

If, and that's a big IF, she happens to be gay, then, yes, I would consider that to be a personal choice of some dishonesty in this day and age. There's really no other way to look at it IF she were. But we don't know, or at least, I will not pretend to know.

Still, IF she is gay and she kept it to herself, that would have no weight in her qualification as a judge. Zero.

And IF she were, I'd keep in mind that she then would be a minority three times in this country: Jewish, woman and possibly gay. That's a lot to wear, so I'd give her a lot of room.

Regardless, I think she will be a terrific addition to the SCOTUS. I support her without reservation.

[scheming daemons]

84. Is it inherently problematic to make threads that.....

advance rumors a person is gay just because the person is single and over 40?


There is nothing empirical that points to Kagan being gay. The sole "evidence" is that she is 50 years old and never married.


Threads like this are the only "internet" evidence that is out there... basically people starting "is she gay?" threads on bulletin boards and blogs all over the internet, then using each others' threads as evidence that "where there's smoke there's fire."


The OP is engaging in this activity, even if subtly.


And subtlety makes it no less despicable.

[ruggerson]

87. so being gay is such a horrible thing to you that you find it to be a smear?

I, and many other people, view it akin to asking how many kids the neighbor down the street has or whether someone's sister is left handed or whether a co-worker is married.

You and I live in two different cultures that are as opposed as day and night. The despicable one is the one that perpetuates prejudice.

[scheming daemons]

91. Absolutely not

But spreading rumors about someone, with no facts to back them up, *IS* horrible.

Doesn't matter what the rumor is about.

[ruggerson]

96. the "rumors" were already there

I'm commenting on the cultural complications derived from the double standards eagerly propogated by those suffused with heterosexual privilege.

[Prism]

88. Wondering if someone's gay isn't "a smear"

Hmm. Guess a Supreme Court nominee isn't the only thing getting outed around here.

The reasons Kagan's orientation surfaced isn't because of her marriage status or appearance or age. There had been comments and rumors making the rounds about a very specific woman said to be Kagan's long-term partner.

The LGBT community has been wondering about Kagan for awhile now in a glass closet sense. We're interested in whether or not it's possible someone from our community is about to ascend to a prominent position in U.S. government.

It's a bit funny to me. Every evil Republican ever is always secretly gay around here, but when we start to idly wonder about Kagan - in a way that is in no way derogatory or demeaning - why, it's the most despicable thing anyone's ever heard!

You need to stop hanging with score and a treble in the catapult section of LGBT discourse.

[scheming daemons]

92. If you have specific evidence, present it

Saying there have been "rumors making the rounds" is not evidence.


If she's gay, she's gay. No big deal for me... I think she'd make a great justice.

If she's not gay, she's not gay. Again, no big deal for me... I think she'd make a great justice.



But people surmising that she is gay simply because she is of a certain age and is single is ridiculous. And then those rumors feed on themselves.

[Prism]

93. Andrew Sullivan is inquiring about it as well

And since he's practically a hero around here for his dogged support of the President - and a gay man to boot - I would say that this line of discourse isn't out of bounds.

Kagan's possible orientation is being widely discussed in the LGBT community. There's nothing despicable or denigrating about it.

You're making a lot of assumptions about people's motives and reasoning.

[Hansel]

94. Stephanie Miller is in her 40s and not married. Is she gay?

I am in my late 50s and was only married for 1 year. I'm not gay. I just didn't find anyone mature and intelligent enough to marry/stay married to and I didn't want to babysit for the rest of my life. I'm a very independent person. I love my single life.

My daughter is 35 and not married. Pretty much for the same reasons. She is extremely intelligent and hasn't found a guy that isn't intimidated by that that isn't already married. She's happily single as well.

The first thought that came to my mind is that this woman is somewhat like my daughter, not that she is gay. She's a very intelligent and career oriented and maybe she just doesn't put coupling up with someone first. There are quite a few people out there that just don't want to get married for a variety of reasons. They either don't meet the right person (gay or straight) or they aren't looking. They have different priorities.

She could be gay, but that is up to her to disclose. The speculation about her sexual orientation is a bridge too far. It's none of anyone business in relation to her appointment to the supreme court. It's only your business if she decides it should be.

[ruggerson]

95. Do you really want me to answer that one?

n/t

[Beacool]

97. I have no idea whether she's gay or not and it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

I guess a lot of the speculation is due to her looks. She's not particularly attractive and could be considered to look "butch". If she looked "femme" no one would be questioning her sexuality.

Regardless, I don't see why she should need to hide it if she is gay. What do her sexual preferences have to do with her ability to perform her job?

:shrug: