The changing rules of being gay

[dsc]

I admit that while I don't know if Elena Kagan is a lesbian I do very much suspect she likely is. It isn't just a where there is smoke there is fire argument but a totality of the evidence argument. So for the sake of argument let's assume she is a lesbian.

Dr. Kagan graduated high school in 1977 and got her B A in 1981. She got her masters in 83 and her law degree in 86. In comparison I graduated high school in 86 and college in 90. So I, while not a contemporary of hers am sort of close to one. The fact is people who graduated in that era were told, in no uncertain terms, that one couldn't be both openly gay and a respected success in ones occupation. Openly gay teachers, lawyers, doctors, professors, and politicans were next to non existant. We made our choices under this set of rules.

Now there are those, both people in favor of gay rights and those against who are saying she needs to come out. If she doesn't she gets villified by these people for being somehow deviously dishonest. That isn't fair. She played by the rules we were told to play by. You can't then blame us for having done so. The fact is, if she is gay, it will likely come out somehow. Either an assocation with a gay group or a previous lover will come forward. At that point, she may well finesse this as we have been told under the old rules. Maybe she will come out, as the new rules suggest. Either way, she may well be the last of her kind. The last of the people who finesse this issue because we were told too, not because, like Mr. Rekers, we are self loathing, bitter, people. I think that will be an improvement, but it isn't her fault she lived under the old rules.

[Unvanguard]

1. She doesn't NEED to come out. Certainly not before her confirmation vote.

But if she's actually a lesbian, it would be a good thing if she came out eventually. Not a moral obligation, though: ultimately she's the only one who has the right to decide when and how.

[Prism]

3. Why not before?

Honest question. I see people advocating for the closet an awful lot, and I'd like to know the thinking behind it.

[Unvanguard]

6. She has the right to come out whenever she likes.

But I'd rather the confirmation process be as easy and non-controversial as possible, so that it will be over quickly at minimal political cost to Obama. And, again assuming that she actually is a lesbian, the fact that she hasn't come out yet, and that the White House explicitly said that she wasn't a lesbian, lead me to believe that she and the Administration of a similar mind to me on this question.

I can see the other side of this argument, that she should be open, honest, and principled... but I guess I'm a little bit too much of a cold-blooded political realist to appreciate it.

[Prism]

11. Thank you for your honesty.

". . . so that it will be over quickly at minimal political cost to Obama"

Yeah, that's how a lot of LGBT issues roll around the Democratic Party these days.

[Unvanguard]

33. Her confirmation hearing, I said.

Every liberal should want her confirmation hearing to be politically easy (except perhaps those who resolutely oppose her). That is not a particularly difficult value question, and is not an LGBT issue.

If Elena Kagan wanted to be out before her confirmation hearing, despite the political inconvenience I would not object to that decision on her part: she is not obligated to hide herself for anyone else's gain. It seems clear, however, that she wants nothing of the sort, or else she would have been out long ago and we would not be having this discussion. In that context, it seems misplaced to insist on any kind of obligation on her part to come out, especially when her doing so before her confirmation hearing would probably be politically bad both for her and for Obama. This is NOT to state an opposite obligation not to come out, which clearly does not exist.

[Prism]

36. Advocating someone should remain closeted is an LGBT issue

Hey, some people regularly put the administration over the LGBT community. It happens all the time, and I'm not going to box you about the rhetorical ears for putting it so bluntly. I asked for your reasoning, you calmly offered it. I appreciate that.

But I don't think we should delude ourselves into thinking that advocating for someone to remain closeted in order to to "smooth the process" is anything but a form of homophobia. It is.

[Unvanguard]

60. I don't think that's a correct statement or analysis of my view.

Advocating that people live lives in the closet for the sake of others (to avoid "embarrassment to the family", to avoid "flouting", etc.) is indeed a form of homophobia. You'll note that not only have I consistently said that it's ultimately her own choice, but I also said at the very start of this that her coming out would be a good thing.

But Elena Kagan, again assuming that she is in fact a lesbian, is not suddenly being forced into the closet for anyone else's good: if the rumors are to believed, she has been, while not exactly closeted, not quite public either, presumably by her own initiative. It's reasonable to suspect that either (a) she just doesn't want to come out (for whatever reason) or (b) she is doing it to continue her engagement in public life with a minimum of obstacles. What I have said, effectively, is that I sympathize with the second reason: in the immediate context of her confirmation hearing, I think it makes political sense, both for her and for Obama. Confirmation hearings, after all, are times where you try as much as possible to say as little as possible about yourself, at least when it comes to things that the opposition could use against you, as this certainly (though not justifiably) is. It is not particularly a fair process, not least because the questioning relies on what are (to put it bluntly) very stupid jurisprudential theories, but it is what it is.

What I have not said, and would never say, is that Elena Kagan or anyone should be expected to closet herself for anyone else's good--or for her own, if her choice is otherwise. That choice is too personal, and can exact too large a toll on a person, to force upon someone for any reason.

[donco6]

29. Well, heaven's, we gays create such a political debt for Obama.

How ever will we manage to pay it back?

[Unvanguard]

34. Gays don't particularly have any debt to Obama. The direction of credit goes the other way.

I'm not sure what your post has to do with mine.

[donco6]

53. We're baggage, Unvanguard.

And admitting to it creates baggage for others, as you noted with Obama. We're best kept under wraps until the "proper time." Like the crazy auntie in the attic, who only comes out AFTER the wedding.

[Unvanguard]

66. And the proper response to that kind of thinking is usually "Fuck the bigots and let them whine."

But this is not the course Kagan seems to want to take here, and considering that the "bigots" in this case probably compose more than forty Senators and might block her chance to serve on the Supreme Court--almost certainly something she very much wants to do--I find that choice of hers eminently understandable.

[vaberella]

112. I'd love to say, "Fuck the bigots and let them whine." But they have power too.

And that's really the problem. These bigots can do a lot of damage. I have to agree with you on this.

[donco6]

114. And that's where we disagree.

Of course this is all speculation, as I have no idea if she's gay or not. But if she is, and she continues to play the "dodge and weave" game, as a class of people, we'll continue to go nowhere. She'll buy in to the idea that being gay is somehow bad and justifiably objectionable, rather than laying it out there and daring someone to actually prove that assertion. Until we get someone with that kind of courage, we'll be mired here, right where we are. It's too bad.

[Smashcut]

68. Wouldn't it be nice if the administration were prepared to *defend* an out GLBT person for the Court

Nah, that'd be too much to ask for.

Instead, Dems say "come out, sure - just not before the hearing!" I don't know if you realize it, but that thinking illustrates the false "support" of the Democratic Party for GLBT people's lives.

BTW, the WH's "defense" of Kagan on this issue was nothing short of homophobic.

[Unvanguard]

73. I agree that the White House's "defense" was homophobic.

And I agree also that they should be willing to defend her genuinely if she's a lesbian and she comes out. I agree, further, that expecting Kagan, or anyone else, to remain closeted for political expediency is grossly unfair and unacceptable. My post was not argument for an obligation on Kagan's part to do or not do anything--she has no such obligation--but merely a reflection on the fact that, in political terms, the political costs of a confirmation fight where opponents can exploit her sexuality can be avoided without seriously impacting the political and social benefits of having an openly LGBT person on the Court.

I certainly did not mean to suggest that Kagan herself is obligated to, or even should necessarily, pay the personal costs of remaining closeted for the political benefit of the Obama Administration, nor that it is fair to demand of her that she appease the small-minded bigots of the Senate. My post took as a given the subject of this thread, which is Kagan's (assuming she's a lesbian) own long-term choice to not be public about her sexual orientation.

[tavalon]

84. Yeah, it would be

I'll tell you, though, closeted or not, having a gay person on the Supreme Court would be great. I expected DU to have thoroughly vetted Ms. Kagan today and am actually surprised that this is what bubbled up. Yesterday, I was being told that as a liberal, I should be outraged at this pick. Today, I'm being told she might be gay. Things are really looking up.

If she is gay, I couldn't care less if she's closeted or not. The only people I think should be forced out of the closet are those whose actions have been detrimental to gays while secretly being gay (the list is long and generally of the religious or conservative bent). And if she is gay, and wants to come out, now or later, I'm all for it. This administration generally does a better job vetting than the last one did, so, if she is gay, I think they know it and I would hope they would be prepared. That's where some of my hope fails.

[defendandprotect]

83. "and that the White House explicitly said that she wasn't a lesbian" ...

How did that come about . . . .

and if she does have a partner at present that would mean that she will be hidden?

Nor would that make for a very comfortable or happy life for her serving on the court.

Maybe at the moment there is no one in here life -- and this is something for future?

[Unvanguard]

95. There was a blog post on the CBS News website suggesting that she was.

The White House responded rather angrily to that suggestion.

According to the rumors, she does indeed have a partner, and that is an open secret at Harvard Law School. I expect that if she is in fact a lesbian and does not come out while on the Court, it will continue to be an open secret during her service. We will end up learning the truth.

[defendandprotect]

96. If there is a partner, I really don't see how it would be possible to keep it a secret ... ???

How would that be possible?

[Unvanguard]

98. It is a "secret" of sorts as long as she doesn't publicly acknowledge it.

The national media does not like "outing" people, and unless she does something clear like marry her partner, there are always alternative explanations that can be offered. Plenty of public figures have had relationships before coming out.

[defendandprotect]

99. Only as long as the right wing doesn't out her . . . or is that impossible

without her cooperation in some way?

[MadMaddie]

117. It's her life and when she is ready she can do it.

Why is it that society has a right to dictate when and how gays come out?

Individualism is supposed to be a trait of being American and I think that society has become a bully pulpit dictating what people should do.

[Prism]

2. I don't particularly hold it against her, but . . .

If true. Different times, different world. People who wanted to advance simply exercised "discretion" and were rewarded socially and professionally for it.

I think Ruggerson has an excellent point in his OP, though. We are now living in a time where prominent LGBTers who hide their family are perpetuating a homophobic double standard in culture and politics. We now have gushing magazine photo spreads of a politician with their spouse and children and endless articles detailing their home lives. Supreme Court nominees have their families prominently displayed behind them during hearings.

The idea that LGBTers should hide who they are, who their families are in the second decade of the 21st Century does not sit well at all with me.

It is her choice, if she is indeed a lesbian, and I won't factor that when trying to figure out if I approve of her or not.

However, right now, there are a lot of ostensible liberals who are saying that any LGBT individual nominated to such a high post should stay in the closet until appointed. That, to me, is a very soft-to-firm species of homophobia that has absolutely no place in the Democratic Party.

No one should be advocating for LGBTers to stay in the closet for any reason. Totally out of bounds and relentlessly indicative of the general attitudes and problems we have within our own party. When I read Ruggerson's thread last night, it shocked me not at all to see those kinds of attitudes coming from the same sources who are so indifferent-to-hostile about the LGBT community's push for equality against this President.

All of it too revealing. We should be past this horseshit already when it comes to our own party. Really old.

[Jennicut]

5. She shouldn't have to " come out" (if she is a lesbian) if she doesn't want to.

Nor be forced into the closet if she does.

[Prism]

7. It's her choice

As I said, I won't hold it against her. But it is undeniable that if she is a lesbian and remains closeted, she is helping to perpetuate a homophobic double standard.

I also find the argument that she ought to remain closeted for political expedience totally loathsome.

[defendandprotect]

75. I'd also remind Americans that the rw succceded in putting a pervert on the court in Thomas . . .

but he didn't get there without help from Democrats -- Biden, for one.

[smalll]

4. Why do you "suspect" that she's a Lesbian? What do you mean by "where there is smoke there is fire"

in this instance?

Just becuase she never married? And does she "look" like a lesbian to you?

I'm a 41-year old man who never got married. I guess if you met me you'd like to "assume" I'm gay, right?

It's tough enough being a single person in this world without having the extra added assumption of gayness piled on top of it. So I never found a woman to marry me. (Maybe Elena never found a man.)

Let me make this perfectly clear: a gay man is a man who doesn't want women. I'm just a man whom women don't want. This kind of assumptive gayness laid upon anyone who doesn't fit in really grinds my gears. :banghead:

[Dappleganger]

9. +1

[dsc]

10. She has been rumored to have an actual female parter, a specific person

by people who would be in a position to know one way or the other.

[defendandprotect]

77. How could Kagan possibly hope to hide that?

[JI7]

104. She isn't trying to hide it

[ruggerson]

13. why do you accuse him before you've educated yourself

as to what has been written about this.

dsc didn't just make this up.

[Prism]

15. There's been noise to this effect for awhile now

Not because of her marriage status or appearance, but because there is apparently a very specific individual who has been referenced as her partner.

There are a lot of "glass closets" in the world (see: Anderson Cooper and Jodie Foster). Who is in them generally circulates around the LGBT community. Most of the time they're correct. Kagan is finding herself in a similar position. Could be true. Might not be. I actually lean towards not, only because the administration said so resolutely that she wasn't, and it would really be very stupid to have said that, knowing that it always gets out in the end. That's some fire the administration would be playing with on something as significant as a Supreme Court nominee.

But, the glass closet argument is being floated around, which is a very specific breed of argument, and one not based on someone merely being single or looking a certain way.

[Divine Discontent]

106. well... that sounds horribly anti-gay

LOLOL.. j/k ya.
I'm sure it's frustrating to be assumed Gay when you're not, because you're single. I don't like being assumed I have to 'find the right girl', when I'm not looking for her, and plenty of right ladies are constantly in my face and hover around me. (my curse, ha) I wish I could transfer some of the affection of one to you. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

8. Whatever she is, I'm thinking that is her business.......

to come out in an ideal world would be a big plus,
but that's not the world we live in still.

So the question becomes, is she interested in letting us know what her sexual orientation is,
or is she interested in getting confirmed to the highest court in the land for life?

I suspect that she's more interested in getting the job than in making a moral statement at this time.

If she can both get the job, and then also make a moral statements a bit down the line, seems like that's a twofer!

[Prism]

18. Is a straight politician being married "his business" as well?

Do you find it uncomfortable when the media references a heterosexual politician's spouse?

Only with LGBTers do we suddenly find the most innocuous family details deeply personal, and only to be referenced under cover of night.

That's the entire point here.

[FrenchieCat]

20. She's not a politician.

I didn't care about any of the other justices' families,
so I don't see why I should care about hers.

What about you, do you care about this potential juror's family?
and if so why?
Did you care about the family of the other Justices during their confirmation?

[Prism]

23. She's a political figure

And being one of nine serving for life on the highest court in the land certainly puts her on par with any other politician out there as far as importance and prominence.

Edit: I care in that LGBT visibility is very important. A prominent political figure in this day and age shouldn't feel relegated to the closet for political expedience. Other, non-LGBT people, certainly shouldn't be advocating for that relegation of an LGBT individual.

Because that's homophobic. That's why I care.

[FrenchieCat]

30. I didn't care about her family when she was confirmed as solicitor general.....

I don't consider a Justice a political figure per se....
they don't stand before me and ask that I judge them or ask for my vote.

I already voted for the person who would decide who would sit on the supreme court,
and so I'm good.

[Prism]

32. But you do, because you said you'd like to see her come out after confirmation

So said you in Ruggerson's thread.

So, when given a preference, you'd rather her remain closeted until after confirmation and then talk about her family. Why pretend an indifference you do not possess?

[FrenchieCat]

38. I think that would be great......

cause the haters wouldn't be able to do anything to change it.

Do I want a Lesbian on the highest court of the land for life?

hell fucking yeah, I do!

[ruggerson]

27. It was a given that the straight justices would have their families there

try to think of this from a gay person's point of view. Just think about it a little.

[FrenchieCat]

31. And so perhaps her family will be there if she has one.....

and? What then? What do you want to happen?

[ruggerson]

48. I want authenticity

I don't want people to have to live a double standard out of fear of prejudice. It's not rocket science. I want gay people to be treated no differently than straights.

DADT is loathsome enough for the military - we don't have to perpetuate it in civilian life as well.

[defendandprotect]

81. First, Supreme Court is POLITICAL ... and I only care about her family . . .

if the rw is going to use it against her -- !!

[bliss_eternal]

37. actually...yes.

i'm probably in the minority, but i don't give a shit about het. politician's spouses, and am offended when they are brought up. he's running for office...not his spouse. :shrug:

how does this relate to kagan? personally, i'd just like to see another woman nominated--lesbian or not. as a woman i'd like to see her held to the same standards as men,(who are also nominated) in that no one pumps the hell out of men about their prior sex lives (unless they are democrats/progressives).

the accusation from hill re:clarence thomas, became less about if they were seating a pervert and all about anita hill. :eyes: we all remember how that went down (unfortunately).

but glbt's feeling differently about the issue....? i can understand and respect that.

[Prism]

46. Honestly, I don't care either

I almost never read articles about spouses and children and things. Doesn't interest me. I'm not much a People Magazine person.

However, Ruggerson asked a question about how highlighting family is a matter of course for straight politicians and the double standards LGBT families often endure.

And then came a flurry of responses advocating that Kagan, if a lesbian, should keep it hidden.

I find that attitude fairly homophobic in this day and age.

If true, it's Kagan's choice, and it won't color my opinion of her. But the double standard is difficult not to notice. When someone is always gushing about this or that politician's spouse and family, and then suddenly decides "Oh, that's personal and should be left alone" when it comes to an LGBT individual, I can't help but feel we're dealing with at least a soft form of cultural homophobia here.

[bliss_eternal]

52. i can understand that....

...and i respect the arguments made in support for her not being closeted (if she's lesbian). as well as the example of the treatment of heterosexual politicians, etc.

i'm going to re-read the responses to this thread, as i haven't been reading it "carefully." not sure if people said she "should" stay hidden or if they said "...if she chooses to, we respect that." i want to be sure of what everyone is saying/arguing.

i tend to come from a place of gender/sex. i'm very sensitive to the kinds of issues brought up when the candidate is a woman (vs. a heterosexual, caucasian male). there is a difference. not sure how that is changed when we throw a woman's sexuality into the mix. bottom line, i don't want to see another woman trashed, for any reason--because they tend to not trash men (just because they are men) unless the men are liberals. :(

[Prism]

55. I'm referencing a different thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x291912

I'm not one who thinks everyone should de-closet immediately, and if they won't, we'll do it for them. But I thought Ruggerson outlined a thought-provoking problem with how LGBTers are treated, and many of the responses to his ideas are what started my engines revving.

My ire is directly solely at the double standard. I know very little about Kagan at the moment. I like Sotomayor and have generally been very pleased with the President's judicial choices. I'm looking forward to learning what Kagan has to offer.

[bliss_eternal]

62. oh, ok...

...thanks for the head's up and the link. i'll definitely check that out. :thumbsup:

i can understand what you're saying, and what made you angry. double standards suck. it's unfortunate that we all aren't more privy to what it's like to live our lives w/feet in different worlds. it would probably make us all more sensitive in these kinds of discussions, or at least i'd like to think so.

[bliss_eternal]

65. one thing that comes to mind...

...while reading thread linked:

someone said they would need to know if there is an ulterior motive for the candidate being evasive about their sexuality/home life, relationship, etc.

again, as a woman i would wonder if perhaps she's not disclosing information about her partner (if she has one) due to the concern of putting her (and/or her family) in danger? any thoughts on this possibility?

i had similar concerns during sotomayor's hearings. i was terrified someone was going to drag it out of her, (that she was pro-choice, etc.) and that she or her family would be hurt over it. :scared: keep in mind this was after the murder of the abortion doctor.

again, i'd like to reiterate that this is in no ways an attempt to dismiss the concerns expressed in either thread. these are valid concerns that i hope other progressives will consider.

[Prism]

100. It's always possible

And that's why I'm not very fond of forced outings. We never really know the why of it, and I'm not one to judge reasons. It could be something as simple as the partner not being out herself.

Honestly, if it wasn't already out there to the degree it is, I'd probably not even bother talking about it at all. If it's true, Kagan has to know on some level that attempts by SC nominees to be inscrutable invite that much more scrutiny, and there is almost no possibility the truth won't eventually wash out with everyone scrubbing on her past.

That's why I'm kind of leaning against the idea that she is. I know the rumors are out there from people who I generally expect to know about these things. And yet, the administration was pretty adamant she's straight. If that isn't the case, it seems like a needless, easily disproved deception with the potential to unravel a nomination. It would be some seriously crazy hubris or incompetence to risk it.

[ruggerson]

51. "but glbt's feeling differently about the issue"

Thank you bliss. I, for one, appreciate that. I think we all would be better off if we were to admit we need to listen to the people that actually experience this in their daily lives.

[bliss_eternal]

56. oh...you're welcome.

:hug: no worries. as a woman, i look at the issue from that perspective. i see kagan as a sister (in womanhood), and want to see her treated fairly from that position. i respect that a glbt person is inclined to see the issue from a completely different stance.

[ruggerson]

24. Catch 22 Frenchie

If we all start coming out the world will have to change.

Even though I find the argument that she has to lie (implicitly or explicitly) about who she is in order to get ahead to be appalling, it is ultimately her life and her decision. (assuming the stories are true and she is gay.)

[FrenchieCat]

35. You have the right to think that.

I have a right to believe that what someone does in their home is their business.
I don't wear a tag saying I'm Black (and with me, it isn't obvious),
or that I'm straight. I would prefer having a Gay person on the court for life
if I had to choose between her making a statement by coming out, or just going about
her business and ending up being confirmed. Personally, I think the Right is probably
foaming at the mouth, trying to figure out how to make an issue of her sexuality....
and if they get that chance, I think that it would be a shame....especially if she ends
up not being able to serve due to their attacks.

[ruggerson]

45. You have written many times

that you're a proud black woman. As you should. You have also written many times that Barack Obama is a proud black man (witness the many discussions when white people have written of him as "mixed".)

So why shouldn't gays and lesbians be able to simply acknowledge their adult families? Not trumpeting it. Not making it an issue. Just simply telling the truth.

[FrenchieCat]

54. I'm saying folks should do what they choose to do........

And if you choose to urge everyone to encourage her to declare her sexuality,
you don't need me to approve.

[ruggerson]

57. I'm saying the world won't change unless people start leading with the truth

she has to make her own decision. I can't and shouldn't make it for her.

[awoke_in_2003]

69. The truth is...

it is none of ours, or anybody else's, fucking business. We scream and holler when republicans intrude into the bedroom, why should we intrude into her life. We need to know whether she is qualified to serve and review her prior record- nothing more.

[ruggerson]

76. knowing her spouse is not "intruding into the bedroom"

it's merely knowing who her family is.

We weren't "intruding" into John Roberts bedroom when we were all publicly introduced to his wife and kids.

[David Zephyr]

39. It's not the chicken and egg. We all need to come out. It's 2010.

I hear you and understand where you are coming from, but to me, there's very little excuse for staying in the closet if you are an adult in America (note, I did not say there were no excuses).

It's 2010. The only person that doesn't believe everyone already knows someone is gay is the person in the closet. Everyone knows today. Staying in a closet in America today is pretty much silly. The only one being fooled is the not being honest with themself.

In fact, there's a point in age when I'd prefer that those who are still hung up and pretending they are not gay to just stay in the closet. I have a very low tolerance for American gay adults still lying about who they are. It's dishonest. I just don't like it. And far too many times, those in the closet after they are in their friggin' 30's are hostile to my GLBT community. And I don't like that either.

[FrenchieCat]

41. So urge her to come out,

let the right attack her,
and let's have a fight,
and let's see who wins....
and if she loses,
well, at least, it's 2010!


I thought in 2010, there would be hardly any racism in reference to this President winning,
and I was wrong and stand totally corrected!

[David Zephyr]

49. Oh, don't be silly.

You don't know what I think about her. I support her and think she will be a terrific Justice in spite of the angst that some are expressing here. I don't know if she is or isn't gay. I think she will be a very good addition to the Court.

Three things make me support her:

1.) She's brilliant.
2.) She's a woman.
3.) She's appointed by Obama.

That's enough for me.

[boppers]

58. Two things?

You count funny.
:evilgrin:

edit:

Ah, you caught it too.

[David Zephyr]

101. I did.

I said years ago that typos are the hallmark of a David Zephyr post. Still are. ;-)

[defendandprotect]

87. Being "brilliant and female" is great -- but we also need someone with heart . . .

a humanist --

And I think that anyone who at this stage is worry about the effect on Obama is concentrating

on the wrong issue.

[David Zephyr]

108. My goodness, she's an American Jewish woman. That has "heart" all over it.

I think if there is a god, she would be a Jewish American woman.

[struggle4progress]

92. If her sexuality actually becomes a major issue, I should guess she won't be confirmed

That probably guarantees quick confirmation of the replacement nominee, but at the cost of handing the rightwing a "victory" that refreshes its troops. On the other hand, I suspect that a very loud and vocal fight involving her alleged sexuality would be the very last such fight we ever see in the Senate over a nominee on that issue, and that after another ten or fifteen or twenty years an openly gay nominee to the court would be approved without a murmur

[defendandprotect]

88. Right now, you may have a point re the military . . . they can take revenge on them one by one ....

but if all of them stood up one day -- let's say in the NY Times -- in a letter

to America . . . could they take revenge on them all?

And, for how many of them would such a punishment be a real penalty?

[defendandprotect]

86. As a non-gay, of course, I see a great deal of truth in what you're saying . . .

however, we also know that all oppression is kept in place by violence and

intimidation and that too often there still seems to be a punishment still

for gays.

Obama couldn't possibly hide his race -- homosexuality is a little different

from that, IMO --

but overall I bow to the homosexual community to say what should happen in

any event like this.

These are only my thoughts on it --

[ruggerson]

94. your thoughts are appreciated and quite lucid

[NJmaverick]

12. Kagan's sexual orientation has nothing to do with her performing her job as a Justice

so I feel strongly that it shouldn't enter the debate.

[dsc]

14. did you find it as problematic when we were introduced to

Robert's family to use one example.

[FrenchieCat]

19. My answer to that question?

I didn't care about Robert's family at the time one way or the other.
If they wouldn't have showed up, I don't feel I would have missed anything.

[NJmaverick]

21. When have Republicans not exploited their families for political gain?

[awoke_in_2003]

72. Families should be kept out of it...

I don't care about any public figures wife (or husband, as the case may be), and I definitely don't want to see their ankle biters, either.

[ruggerson]

25. Did you equally agitate against Roberts, Alito and others not to have their spouses

front and center at their hearings?

[NJmaverick]

26. I considered it a slimy and typical republican thing to do

however since the Republicans don't give a rat's behind what I think, my agitation was pointless.

[ruggerson]

43. but it's not just a republican thing to do

Ginsberg and Breyer showcased their families as well.

And there have been magazine spreads on both of them in People and other publications across the years.

[NJmaverick]

63. What's your point exactly? Are you suggesting that showing off a family is touting a particular

sexual orientation? If so, how does one explain former governor McGreevy/

[ruggerson]

78. My point is simple: if its de rigueur to introduce one's spouse and kids when nominated to the USSC

why should there be a noxious double standard for gay nominees?

[NJmaverick]

I think she should be free to tout her partner or whoever else she wants

but it should be her choice

[stevenleser]

80. "agitate"? I am sure if asked they would have said the same thing at the time.

This sentiment is actually pretty common on the Democratic side of the aisle. We're not the family values folks. I dont care about someone's marriage or significant other or whatever else. Is it something for which I'll get out the protest signs, pitchforks and torches? No. It's not quite that important.

[ruggerson]

93. I'm referencing the double standard

not whether politicians in general should trot their families out.

They nearly all do - that's a given. So we take it from there.

[stevenleser]

97. But many of us have never liked that to begin with. In fact...

that was one of the arguments brought out by me and countless others during Clinton's impeachment. His family, his marriage, his sex life, etc., had no bearing on whether I, or millions of others, thought he was doing a good job. It didnt matter to me/us. (of course, then Edwards came and I am totally confused on fellow Democrats' reaction to that one, but I digress and dont want to get that started here).

A persons spouse or orientation is not going to make them a better brain surgeon, politician, teacher, etc.

You are of course right that many if not most politicians, court nominees, etc. do this. Where I take issue with your position is when you make a blanket accusation against many here that we were in some way fine with it then but not now, i.e. the double standard you are attempting to assert.

Many if not most of us weren't ever happy about the practice. It just wasn't in the top 500 of our list of things to worry about regarding those candidates. It's not now either, other than trying to understand how the GLBT community feels about it.

As far as whether she should come out now, if she is, in fact, a lesbian, it depends on what one is attempting to accomplish. If I were advising her purely from the perspective of making her confirmation as easy as possible, I would say no. If I were advising her from the perspective of her attempting to set a precedent that it shouldn't matter (as I believe it shouldn't) I would say damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead. As a journalist and someone who would be happy to argue that point on a certain news channel, the second circumstance is certainly more exciting for me.

[ruggerson]

109. We live in a celebrity culture

I don't think that is going to change any time soon.

I support Kagan's nomination whether she is gay or straight.

What I don't support is the egregious double standard which I see defended here by supposed liberals which says it's ok for the media to routinely disclose the marriage status of heterosexuals, but they must remain silent about the family life of gay people.

If we start from the premise, the worldview, of equality, then we must live it in a way that will move this nation out of the dark ages.

[stevenleser]

115. You have created this straw man that you are determined to beat up

I hope at some point you can see that.

[awoke_in_2003]

71. +1. nt

[defendandprotect]

89. ... but we've seen many homosexuals not only denying their own homosexuality ...

but working to inflict and pass unjust laws re homosexuality --

I also think think otoh that the rw would suspect that if she were a lesbian

that laws they want to stay in place -- DOMA, for instance -- might be endangered?

So it does matter re her "performance."

[ClarkUSA]

16. Thank you.

I agree with you 100%.

[Dr Morbius]

17. Here's the deal: I don't care.

I don't care if anyone in particular is gay; I am married so my needs are met. The way I see it, there's no need for anyone to advertise that they are gay, or deny that they are gay. It ain't nobody's business, you see. The only time I even care is when closet gays publicly bash homosexuality - which they themselves practice in private. Then, I call hypocrisy.

I suspect this claim is made solely because she's fifty and unmarried. It presumes no one can possibly live a life that's largely celibate, so she MUST be hiding something. It's puerile. Having said that, I don't care. She understands about the concept of legal consent and lives by it; that's good enough for me.

[Prism]

22. There is a need for "advertisement" actually

The more prominent, successful people who are out in culture, media, and politics, the easier it is for LGBT youth to feel accepted.

LGBT visibility is vital to the mental and cultural health of people who grow up with negative views of different orientations. Each prominent individual who comes out is a victory for us all.

[tbyg52]

40. Absolutely.

And the same goes for atheists. (My personal opinion, based solely on myself, is that that's not a "choice" either - I am totally incapable of paying religion more than lip service, no matter how much I was paid or threatened with.)

Edit for typo.

[Dr Morbius]

44. While I can't argue with that, it is far too important that this be left a matter of choice.

As in, the person involved should be allowed to choose whether to make public their sexuality. I don't cotton to pressuring gays to come out; seems wrong to me. Yes, those who are brave enough to come forward, I salute them. But I don't think staying quiet about one's sex life equates to cowardice, and I've heard that claimed. And again, it just don't seem right to push this. One's sexual choices should rightly be private.

There are other avenues to pursue, like making the argument that there is no gay marriage issue; it's a gay rights issue. I started with this argument in 2005; now it is everywhere. And then when they bring up the "being gay is a choice" crap, I ask them if this is really a choice they want government to make for them. And so on; win the argument, because the other side has no leg on which they can stand for long.

[Prism]

50. I generally agree with you, but "sex life" is a no-no term

I'm really not much for outing and like to leave it to the individual's own choice and time frame. However, that attitude goes a bit squish when we're talking about highly prominent, important, and powerful individuals. If a presidential candidate is closeted, well, how far should the "It's their choice," be extended? The glass closet is a real phenomenon. Take Anderson Cooper. Everyone knows he's gay. There are photos and stories with him and his boyfriend. It's out there, in the public sphere.

But the media are very, very quiet about it and he doesn't talk about it.

At what point is it "out there" and out of the individual's hands? It's a serious question with no easy answer. My general approach is, the less public the individual, the less likely it is their closeting impacts other people. You know, Phil down the street has bugger all to do with anything, so if he wants to remain in the closet, it's his choice. But a Supreme Court justice? That could change things . . .

That said, orientation isn't just "sex life". That trivializes our lives and families. My orientation has to do with who I'm building a life with, how my family is shaped and formed, a giant part of who I am. Reducing it to mere sex is often taken as a deep insult by many in the community.

[Dr Morbius]

61. OK. I get it, and thanks for explaining it.

Instead of freaking out at my insensitivity. Thanks, really. I still believe it has to remain the choice of the individual. I happen to believe, owing to some stories I've read and things I haven't forgotten even though they've dropped off the radar, that the last President was indeed secretly gay.

And he was a freaking awful President, and whether he had come out or not wouldn't have made him any better! :D

As to Anderson Cooper, I really live outside the mainstream. I don't have cable. I don't watch much in the way of "society" news like TMZ, so I had no idea he was gay. I suspect the story doesn't get a lot of noise because reporters want to be cool with one another, so their own secrets stay hidden. Also, Cooper is not an elected official, nor does he seek to be. Therein lies the difference for most folks, on both sides of the aisle.

Americans hold elected officials to different standards than ordinary citizens, and insist on knowing every detail of their lives. That's how the system works, and anyone who runs for office understands that. These people, if they are gay but closeted, know they are running a risk by not being open about their private lives, because voters like openness, and distrust those who are tight-lipped about anything. Rules of the game of politics, and it is a game. Many politicians are able to win and hold office being openly gay, so depending on the part of the nation represented, being gay is not a disqualification. This is progress, to be sure.

The way the rules should work, though, is that being gay shouldn't be a disqualification whether openly or not, because people pay WAY too much attention to how or how often their neighbors have sex! It's time America addressed that, because this is the root of the problem!

Thanks again, and the next time I have this argument, I will say that the choice of relationships, and how public or private those relationships are to be, is and ought to remain entirely up to the individual.

[Prism]

64. It's the glass closet scenario that's the sticking point

The glass closet, as defined in the LGBT community, is when everyone who knows you knows you're gay, but for whatever reason the issue is blacked out by "official" channels like the MSM and politicians.

If Kagan's colleagues are aware she has a long-term partner, but the media haven't reported on it (if true), is she still in the closet? Should we discuss it or leave it alone? How far out does someone need to be before public acknowledgment becomes socially acceptable? Do we need the press conference announcement, or does someone living openly like Anderson Cooper or Jodie Foster cross the threshold into polite discourse?

We like to think of the closet as a clearly delineated portal. People are in, or they're out. But in life, it's more often like a kind of patio with varying degrees of shade. Some of us are romping around in full sunlight, while others are still barely sticking their noses out the back door.

[defendandprotect]

90. Agree -- courageous thinking -- but if it were that easy, there would be no closets.....

There are penalties and I think it's her choice to judge those costs for herself --

Would be wonderful for youth if they could see more of a homosexual world -- especially

a female on the court who is a lesbian!!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

120. You just outed yourself without even a sense of doing so

The information that you are married (and sexually satisfied) was not offered at random. You felt it was useful to the reader understanding your perspective... who you are.

(Granted, you could be married to someone of the same sex but that is numerically unlikely.)

[David Zephyr]

28. I was a open about my gay relationship as an exec with a Fortune 500 company in 1986.

I was out. Everyone including the CEO and his wife knew and could have cared less.

So, while I understand what you are writing, it was completely possible to be honest about who you were and be a "success" in the 1980's within the American Establishment. My life is testament to that fact.

[bliss_eternal]

42. curious...?

...do you think that had any bearing on the fact that you are a male?

(not playing devil's advocate or anything, just sincerely interested if you've considered that, etc.)

[David Zephyr]

47. I have no idea. I just never wanted to lie about who I was.

I loved my companion so much that I wanted to live in the sunlight with him and never, ever hide that fact. I did not have a "secret love" as the song says, I had a love I was proud of and as good, or better than any straight relationship. We are still together since the early 1970's.

Yesterday, my second mom (now 84) told her own biological children and grandchildren (on Mother's Day), about the day she first met my companion when I was about 23 years old. She embarrassed me by telling everyone how she watched my compannion that Thanksgiving day at her home and how he fretted over me so. She said she told her husband (now passed) that night, "my little David has met his perfect partner." She told everyone at her Mother's Day celebration this yesterday. She said, "I changed David's diapers and both my husband and I knew he was probably homosexual when he was a young as four when he came to our home."

[bliss_eternal]

59. ooooh....

that is *so* sweet! :loveya: what a lovely story!

it's great you wanted to share and be honest about who you are, w/people you worked with. good for you! :thumbsup:

[David Zephyr]

105. Thanks. Heterosexuals repond to honesty. For every jackass, there's 10,000 cool straights.

That's been my life experience. Honesty is still the best policy. It takes all the guessing away and makes things easier. Those who it bothered, I found that they only made themselves look small.

[bliss_eternal]

67. this thread only need one more vote...

...to make the main page. whether we agree (or disagree) about this issue, can we at least agree it is worthy of consideration, discussion and the main page?

:hi:
please vote it up!

[bigwillq]

79. I gave it a rec

and a kick! :) :hi:

[bliss_eternal]

85. yay...!

thank you! :):hug::hi:

[defendandprotect]

70. She has the right to be whomever she is, but obviously the rw doesn't want

someone on the court who will support homosexual rights as human rights --

and think that would be their fear.

Is there a present partner? That would be interesting because agree with you

that if so someone will "out" her . . .

Then again, it could also be translated to the right wing as "I didn't inhale!" --

i.e., I am a lesbian but I am chaste! That should satisfy even Popey!!

[elana i am]

74. yeah there's a meme no matter which way you look at it i guess...

IMO elena kagan should do what's best for elena kagan. if i were to imagine myself in her position that would be my only consideration. if the obama admin. made staying closeted or coming out a condition of my being appointed i'd have to be certain that the condition can be reconciled with my conscience. beyond that i would approach being gay as a non-issue for the job qualifications and therefore no-one's business.

i'm going to co-opt the term "gay mafia" as a way of describing gay militants like perez hilton who out other gay people. then we have the "homophobe mafia". flip sides of the same ugly coin. homopobes being low-life asshats is a given. but what of the gay mafia? i'll use my second cousin as an example. she's gay and she's been ostracized by everyone in her family except her grandmother, her little sister and a few second cousins my age and younger. no one outed her, she had enough of hiding and outed herself. but if i was to pretend that one of her gay friends or a militant gay activist outed her, then they would have wrought unspeakable damage to a part of my extended family. her mom and all the other fundamentalist nuts in that side of the family went off the deep end. her younger sister, who adored her (and still does) is forbidden from having contact with her. her father is slowly coming around and they've seen each other a few times. her parents, having had disparate reactions, have become separated and headed for divorce. her grandmother is in the moderate stages of alzheimers and doesn't know from nothing, but my cousin is forbidden from seeing her as well. what if my cousin had decided to wait until her sister was an adult and her grandparents had passed on before she came out and some asshat of perez hilton's ilk came along and took that decision away from her?

i would hope that no gay people would hate on elena kagan for keeping her sexual identity a personal matter, as it should be. homophobes of course don't deserve any consideration, so if it were me, and i was not constrained by the the directives of the obama admin., i would refuse to say on principle simply because it's nobody's business. which leads me to another issue...our celebrity and sex obsessed culture. sexual identity is going to matter because we're all obsessed with what celebrity is sleeping with who. i don't see this going away anytime soon. i try my damnedest to avoid knowledge of the personal lives of celebrities, but i think i'm unfortunately unique that way. hopefully someday that will change.

anyway...i still think we're looking at another 20 or so years of homophobe attrition (by way of dying off, not conversion to a sane perspective) before being gay can truly become normalized and a non-issue.

[struggle4progress]

82. I don't know what will happen. I do think, however, that the proper

response to the rightwing whisper campaign is not idiotic speculation about the woman's sex life; I think the proper response is to choose a different part of the battlefield

The rightwing whisper campaign is chosen to generate a defensive stance and a lot of negative noise about a topic completely irrelevant to the nomination

And I think we should counterattack on those grounds:

What the hell is this crotchsniffing obsession from these people? I'm interested in Kagan's qualifications, not whether some sleazy old rightwing guys can postpone getting a viagra prescription by imagining girl-on-girl action. The whole discussion is completely inappropriate to the seriousness of the proceedings and the civil dignity of the Senate and the Court. When Alito was put forward, I didn't want to know how big his bowel movements are or how many times a day he needed to pee, I needed to know about his judicial history. The whole discussion reminds me of the kindergarden playground. Let's grow up

[political_Dem]

91. Ms. Kagen doesn't have to announce her personal life. That is up to her.

With that being said, I don't care if she is lesbian or not. If she is, that's wonderful. I'm very happy for her if she is.

However, I worry more about whether she's racist or not. And if her hiring record concerning faculty members at Harvard Law School is of any indication, then there's something to worry about. Of all the people she's hired as faculty, nearly all of them were white. There was only one hire that was of color: an Asian American.

In this vein, Chief Justice John Roberts does have a paper trail of working against the civil rights of people of color. And that is problematic concerning future rulings in this area.

[JI7]

102. How about Barney Frank ? he graduated high school in the 60s

and college in early 70s.

he is older than you and Kagan.

[QC]

103. He was basically forced out. n/t

[JI7]

107. based on wiki (i know, you can't always rely on that) he was open from the mid 80s

before he ran for congress.

[QC]

110. You are right--he came out before the escort story broke.

I have always admired him, esp. for his wit, something rare in politics these days.

[dsc]

111. wiki is wrong

he was elected as a closeted gay which was part of what got him in trouble with Stephen Gobie. He covered his tickets in an attempt to cover up his relationship. He came out in 86.

[David Zephyr]

116. I thought he came out publicly (not just to friends) during the summer of '87.

You may be right about the 1986 date, because my memory isn't that great anymore, but I thought it was just before the 1988 political season began.

You are right that he was elected in the closet. He came out afterward.

Barney and his former companion, Herb, held a breakfast at Marshall Fields for GLBT delegates at the 1996 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. He quipped to us there that "Log Cabin Republicans measure their progress by whether fewer or more gays are beaten during their convention" showing his contempt for the Log Cabin Club and how they accept crumbs for victory.

[dsc]

118. actually you are correct it was just before 88

He narrowly won his primary that year. I do love a great Barney Frank quip.

[David Zephyr]

119. Nice thread.

This was a very civil and though provoking thread. Barney is the best.

[mkultra]

113. her sexuality is her business

She is not required to discuss it for any reason. Somehow this feel slightly sexist.