Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Joe Conason: Don't invade Kagan's privacy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:19 PM
Original message
Joe Conason: Don't invade Kagan's privacy
http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/conason/2010/05/10/lesbian

Don't invade Kagan's privacy
Elena Kagan is a legal scholar and advocate, not a gay-baiting politician. Her sexuality should not be an issue

By Joe Conason



Should Elena Kagan be required to disrobe, metaphorically, just because a gay blogger or a religious zealot demands that the Supreme Court nominee reveal whether she is or is not a lesbian? Their motives are utterly different, of course, but their method is the same, and it is just as deplorable that Kagan should be badgered about her private life from the left as from the right.

According to Andrew Sullivan, "it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice's sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue," although precisely how the orientation will affect the judgment he cannot tell us. But even if Sullivan's reasoning is weak, his frustration with the nominee's privacy is palpable as he repeats the rumors: "And yet we have been told by many that she is gay ... and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively ... Did Obama even ask about it? Are we ever going to know one way or the other?"

No doubt Sullivan's agitation will prove quite useful to the right-wingers, whose own behavior is predictable. The chief aim of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council and all such kindred organizations is to separate rube wingnuts from their disposable political dollars before Kagan is confirmed, as she almost inevitably will be. In the worldview of the religious right, suspicions of sexual nonconformity can and must be raised against any unmarried woman of a certain age in public life (unless she happens to be Condoleezza Rice or Harriet Miers, about whom such rumors represented liberal character assassination).

By now, however, sexual hypocrisy on the right is so overwhelming and so baroque that it is difficult to stifle a laugh when Donald Wildmon warns against yet another "sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility" or when Tony Perkins reaffirms that heterosexual "moral rectitude" is a central issue. Are you listening, David Vitter?

Although their ideologies diverge, Sullivan’s stated concern actually mirrors the worries of the wingers. Both believe that Kagan’s jurisprudence will be determined in some sense by her supposed sexual preference. But unlike so many other important issues where her views remain opaque, the nominee has actually spoken out more than once on gay and lesbian rights. She has indeed derided "don’t ask, don’t tell," denounced homophobia more generally -- and yet she has also declared that she finds no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.

By voicing a set of nuanced opinions, Kagan implicitly rebuts the cliché that her sexuality determines her worldview, a silly idea that Sullivan rejects when applied to him. The other side of the same cliché is to suggest that she would elevate the "homosexual agenda," as the far right would say, above constitutional values. She is a scholar and an advocate whose outlook is fundamentally progressive. We can anticipate that she will defend her views ably during her confirmation hearings. What she does or has done in private is irrelevant to those issues.

Outing a political figure is usually a tactic deployed against someone who has exploited homophobia for political gain. That was why gay activists flung open the doors of the overcrowded Republican closets from time to time, which certainly seemed fair enough. But if we have to ask Kagan whether she is a lesbian, where will the inquisition stop? Don't we now know, thanks to Jim McGreevey and Larry Craig among others, that an evidently straight married candidate may not be quite what he appears? Is every nominee and appointee going to be required to fill out a questionnaire about desire? Before we interrogate Kagan about her private life, we ought to find a better reason than the pride of Sullivan or the prejudice of Perkins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
beyurslf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. I hope she stays silent on the issue and then brings her wife to the ceremony when she is sworn in.
I hope they televise it so I can see Roberts' face too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. while I have a number of objections about Kagan as the nominee
I must admit I would love to see that. :evilgrin:

(if the right wing was going to bitch about a "gay" nominee regardless though, he should have gone with Pam Karlan.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. And the camera pans on Roberts
Then on the puddle under his feet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. And the coiled pile in Alito's pants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Is there ANY reason to even SUSPECT that she's gay
Edited on Mon May-10-10 07:54 PM by rocktivity
Aside from being unmarried, over 40, smart and accomplished, I mean...

:eyes:
rocktivity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I have no idea, but I wish the real question was, "Who cares?
None of my beeswax."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Single women over 40 with no kids
always get that from these clowns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. Funny, Wikipedia tells me Conason is married witih two kids
"He married Elizabeth Wagley, in 2002. They have two children, boy and girl twins, born in 2007".

Wikipedia invaded his privacy!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. And? He's not in the running for SCJ; do you think her sexuality should
Edited on Mon May-10-10 09:29 PM by babylonsister
have something to do with Kagan's confirmation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I think straight people and gay people should be treated exactly the same way by the media
I reject a civilian form of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

It's offensive and backward and plays into all the hangups straight people have with gay people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. And I thought Conason was defending her due to her qualifications
for being a SCJ.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I'm sure he thinks he's doing that
but straight people, suffused with heterosexual privilege, arguing for gay people to stay invisible is kind of problematic.

There's a huge double standard going on here. Evidenced by the fact that it took me 2.2 seconds to find out if Conason is married and how many kids he has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC