Republicans are going to bait Kagan mercilessly. What they or the Democrats think about her is unimportant. What GLBT folks think is all important.
<b. The only reason Obama nominated Kagan is because she's a loyal lapdog of big business and militarism, just as he is.
For instance a new article in AlterNet says she “helped protect the Saudi royal family from lawsuits that sought to hold al Qaeda financiers responsible in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
The suits were filed by thousands family members and others affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. … But Kagan, acting as President Obama’s Solicitor General, argued that the case should not be heard even if evidence proved that the Saudis helped underwrite al Qaeda, because it would interfere with US foreign policy with the oil-rich nation.” http://www.alternet.org/rights….._lawsuits/
Her sexuality is her business and hers alone. But if she’s closeted she’s a danger to us all. The Democrat Party is the last closet, the political closet. It warps those who tarry too long. It’s a closet that teaches them first to compromise and then to betray.
The rancid bigotry of Bill Clinton’s DOMA and DADT continue to define the Democrat Party.
What we want to know from Kagan is not who she goes to bed with. We want to know what she’ll do about DOMA, DADT, employment discrimination and etc. She’s not saying. Perhaps that’s a good career move but if she won’t clear up the mystery she can’t be counted on.
The days when even the most senior judiciary need to hide their sexuality in civilised countries are surely over. We have openly gay judges in the UK at high levels, whose careers have not been hampered by the fact of their gayness. And shame on any who have felt it necessary to deny their sexuality, at least in recent years.
Where I would be troubled is if Ms Kagan, if she is indeed gay, feels that she has to hide it. But I am troubled on two levels. First that she feels the need to hide it, if true; and second that the system and its application in the USA is such that it would be seen as a negative issue. The first is my greater concern, since standing up, and squaring up, to those who take a conservative view on homosexuality, by those in positions of influence and power, leads the way for those who do not get the opportunity to push these bounderies. It has been done here; no reason why it should not be done there.
I thought outing was good. Now it’s bad? Hard to keep up with faggish fashion. Softball a lesbian sport? I think only lesbians have this opinion. The general public does not think this at all. Step out of the echo chamber once in a while folks.
The WSJ aren’t gay-baiting Kagan any more than they were gay-baiting Condi Rice when they gushed about her love of sports. For the most part, conservatives actually seem to like Kagan more than liberals do (though that may change by the time she’s confirmed). Most of the talk about Kagan’s sexuality is coming from the left, not the right. A lot of people on the left are wary of Kagan because of her light resume and virtually non-existent paper trail. They hear stories about her neocon-ish support of broad executive powers, including apparently the belief that the President has the authority to have anyone anywhere in the world grabbed and detained indefinitely merely on the suspicion of being an enemy combatant, and they fear she’ll turn out to be a stealth conservative. All the ‘we mustn’t speak of that’ coyness about her sexuality just feeds the nagging suspicions on the left that she isn’t what she appears, that she isn’t really a liberal, and isn’t really on our side. That’s the problem here, not the possibility of a gay justice on the Supreme Court, which polls say the majority of Americans would support.
quit being such a homophobe Fred
Softball isn’t a “lesbian sport” (whatever that means!),
that’s rubbish. Just like soccer, softball is played
in school by both girls and boys. In any case,
Ms Kagan is apparently straight:
“The White House has gone as far as releasing a statement quashing claims of her homosexuality.”
It needed to be addressed…why, Mr Obama?