From The Nation, Kagan piece...

[rasputin1952]

Elena Kagan Is Not Gay
Richard Kim | May 10, 2010

<snip>

Sullivan's reasoning is so naive that I have to wonder if there's some bizarre ulterior motive behind it—or if he's exorcising some old demons. Surely he knows that Kagan does not have a spouse (man or woman) and that she has never identified herself as gay. What exactly does he think is going to happen now? Does he imagine that Kagan, in an uncharacteristically un-butch moment, is going to break down in front of Orrin Hatch and tearily confess to having cloistered away a secret lesbian lover in some Cambridge bat cave because she was worried that Alan Dershowitz would be really really mean to her about it? Because that would go over really well for gay rights—what a role model!—never mind Kagan's confirmation.

The only side this line of questioning helps is the far right, who have already mounted a whisper campaign insinuating that Kagan is a closeted lesbian because she refused to allow military recruiters onto campus because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy—a decision in line with many law schools at the time. ....

<snip>

...Just once I'd like to see this double-standard—complicated in Kagan's case by the perception that she's in the closet—applied to straight white men. Tell me, Judge Roberts, about your heterosexual life experiences? How do you think your bountiful virility (or lack thereof?) will affect your opinions about privacy?

I don't know if Elena Kagan sleeps with women or men. I don't know if she sleeps with anyone at all. I don't care. What I do know is that she has never claimed to be a lesbian, that she's never spoken out in the first-person as an advocate of gay rights and that she has never publicly discussed a romantic relationship with a woman. Gay isn't some genetic or soulful essence; it's a name you call yourself--and Kagan has not done that. So in my book, case closed. Elena Kagan is not gay. Is she straight? I don't know, and again, I don't care. Why does she have to have a sexuality at all?

<snip>


http://www.thenation.com/print/blog/elena-kagan-not-gay



I posted earlier, I don't care about her gender, her sexual identity, her hair color , the choice of vehicle she drives...what I care about is is if she is decent enough to understand and interpret the Constitution...to where it benefits the People. From what I gather...she fits the bill.

[babylonsister]

1. I feel the same way and have gotten some heat on this board

for how I feel. Who cares??? And it's a double standard, as noted in the OP. Thanks for posting.

[rasputin1952]

3. Don't feel bad....

:hug:

Thing is...her sexual identity is her own private matter...people should just leave her alone...:hi:

[Captain Hilts]

2. It's an insane double standard. If she's overweight, doesn't wear shrinkwrap and not

a starlet, she MUST be gay!!!!

As if those things have anything to do with it.

Bet she was nice to her mom, too. That's another indicator - NOT!

[rasputin1952]

5. On paper...

she looks more than adequate to handle the job..light years ahead of Clarence Thomas...and that's all I'm looking for...:D

[Jennicut]

4. It doesn't matter to me either way. And it is pure speculation.

If she is gay and doesn't feel like talking about it then so be it. I care more about her opinions on certain issues.

[rasputin1952]

6. Many, especially in the GOP, would squeal about...

"PRIVACY"...if this were about a RW'er.

People should just leave her alone...it's her private life, and I don't give a hoot about it. I think as a society, we embarrass ourselves far too often...:hi:

[HughMoran]

7. "I don't care about her gender, her sexual identity, ..."

Neither do I, and I've been surprised at certain posters who seem to think it's their place to 'out' her and make this an issue.

[Prism]

8. Ah, DADT for civilian life. And the sex life canard! What an awful article this is.

This is all about making sure Don't Ask, Don't Tell applies socially to LGBTers with the right politics and service. And the author gives himself away when he categorizes mere asking with a powerful word like "interrogation." What on earth? People can ask. It's ok. The idea that even broaching the subject is completely unacceptable reveals and underlines a certain continuing discomfort in heterosexual liberals when dealing with LGBT issues. People may shout "Save the whales!" but send them swimming with one, and they're bound to get nervous.

I have to say, watching Gibbs' evasions leave me wondering. I had been leaning towards not a lesbian with Kagan, but Gibbs' responses and evasions are raising some serious LGBT antennae. People just don't talk this way about someone who's heterosexual.

What drew me into this Kagan topic hasn't been her potential orientation as much as straight people's reactions to it. It's been a trip and a half to watch how questions of sexuality are almost taboo. "She's not gay, and if she is, we don't want to know!" Come on, guys. It's not 1990 around here. Quit behaving as if it is.

Furthermore, this author perpetuates the odious attitude that sexual orientation is all about sex life. Orientation isn't only about who people have sex with. It's about who we share our lives with, who we build our lives with, how our families take root and shape, how we fit in with the rest of society, how we might see the world based on how we are accepted within it. Focusing merely on sex life not only reveals the relegation of orientation to biological plumbing, but it shows how people still consider homosexuality somehow separate and sex-based as opposed to the totality of heterosexuality.

President Obama himself has said repeatedly that a person's biography plays a role in how he evaluates them for the Court. That, more than anything, makes merely asking about Kagan's possible orientation relevant.

This isn't a Victorian dinner party where the dark and unspoken love is never mentioned in polite company.

I think this author, and the people who are nodding along with him, really haven't at all examined their personal relationships with and feelings on LGBTers in broader society.

The discomfort is palpable, the shame always wafting in the background.

We're past this. It's the second decade of the 21st Century. We, as Democrats and liberals, should be past this.

[rasputin1952]

12. You read an awful ot into that...

what I read was that one individual is really pushing a point, for reasons of his own...and that people should not care about another's sexual identification...it's called privacy.

[Prism]

13. I read exactly what was there. The question is, why didn't you see it?

Obviously you aren't perceiving why this article can be taken as a deep insult by an LGBT individual, how the reduction of orientation to where we're putting our genitals is a completely offensive sensibility.

As a gay man, I often see every aspect of the heterosexual experience touched on and celebrated by culture, while homosexuality is reduced to the sex act.

This author did that.

It's offensive as all hell.

I honestly cannot believe you posted this. I think it's worse you can't see why.

[rasputin1952]

14. I posted it because it comes froma reputable source...

and the author holds the same view I do...sexual orientation has nothing to do with being nominated for, or being a USSC Justice.

There is also a very real aspect of privacy for this individual, that some seem to feel does not somehow play into what they would like to see.

The issue is that regardless of how Ms. Kagan would describe herself as, it's basically no one's business. The only thing that should be on the table is her ability to serve.

[Prism]

15. It's a ridiculous homophobic double standard.

Now that I'm familiarizing myself with Ms. Kagan, I'm reading articles full of the most frivolous minutiae about her life. Anything and everything, relevant or not, is being tossed out there as political chum.

But her relationships are off-limits?

Relationships are a significant part of who we are. The people we love and who love us shape and form how we see this world. President Obama himself has said numerous times that a person's biography is part of his evaluation of nominees.

You're saying a person's relationships should be kept separate from their biography?

Nonsense. Utter, total nonsense. If it weren't for the LGBT component of Kagan's nomination, no one would be crying foul over simply asking about her relationships, past and current. We even knew about Sotomayor's past marriage and divorce when she was nominated.

This is Don't Ask, Don't Tell painted onto civilian politics. Nothing more. And it is privileged homophobia that drives it. This line "We won't ask, as long as she does her job well" is an almost verbatim piece of rhetoric from the defenders of DADT.

And you didn't address the author's conflation of sex acts with orientation and relationships, I see. That was the most egregious part of the piece.

The rest of it is just what us LGBTers are used to from too many privileged straight individuals. We'll hear about their spouses, children, exes, marriages, divorces. But inquire about an LGBT individual "Hey! Hey now. That's private!"

So obvious, so ubiquitous, so very tiresome.

This article is crazy homophobic.

[struggle4progress]

9. Sullivan, of course, has a confused political history and shows no signs

of being a careful thinker: he reflexively shoots from the hip, and I don't know why anyone would take him seriously

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Gay is just a name you call yourself...

"Gay isn't some genetic or soulful essence; it's a name you call yourself..."

Yeah, and "fa" is a long, long way to run.


I know the author was all worked up trying to make a feel-good point but in doing so managed to say that gay is a choice and generally trivialize the sexual identity of millions of Americans. (And negate the entire concept of the closet as a fantasy since nobody is gay unless they call themselves gay... no matter who may be carrying their bags.)

I do not care whether Kagan is gay but I know I would prefer that Richard Kim not be on the Supreme Court.

[Prism]

11. Also equating Sullivan's sexual hypocrisy with orientation

That opening left me totally baffled. Sullivan was outed for sexual hypocrisy - not orientation.

That the two were conflated right off the bat is deeply, deeply insulting, and it set the tone for the rest of the piece.

This entire article reeks of homophobia from the privileged liberal perspective. It's garbage.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. What an insulting, bigoted, piece of crap article!

She isn't gay because she hasn't said so? That is some piss-poor logic. She may not be openly gay, but just because she hasn't "shouted it from the rooftops," doesn't negate the possibility of her being a lesbian.

"Gay isn't some genetic or soulful essence; it's a name you call yourself" Really?! REALLY?! How fucking insulting! Besides the implication 'being gay' is a choice, it negates the identity of millions of GLBs. This is akin to the "liberal" drek of "I don't see color; I am color-blind."

"The Senate and the press have the right and responsibility to interrogate her about her legal opinions—not about her sex life." Yes, because we all know being gay is nothing more than who we fuck! :eyes:

Disgusting!

[Prism]

17. Totally crazy, right?

My god, what is wrong with people.

"It's a name you call yourself."

I love that. I need to get a cardboard cutout of this author, so whenever someone asks me the definition of totally clueless straight person, I can whip him out.

[rasputin1952]

18. The point of the article is...

why does it matter?

It doesn't...that is the entire point.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. It is offensive and bigoted.

If that (why does it matter?) is the point, it could have been made without the insults and bigotry.

Why does it matter? It matters because it is part of a person's identity and shapes his/her experiences and responses. Should it be used as a qualifier or disqualifer? NO! But to pretend sexual orientation is not important shows a profound amount of ignorance. It is the uber-PC crap of "I am colorblind." Someone's race, ethnic makeup, religion, and a variety of other things are important. It is bigoted to use those aspects against a person, and, IMO, it is bigoted to ignore their impact on a person.

[Prism]

21. Let's not forget, the fact she's a woman is being feted as significant and relevant

People recognize that gender plays a role in how people see the world.

But sexual orientation?

That only concerns what happens between the sheets, dontcha know.

[rasputin1952]

23. I don't think so at all...

here's the situation...if she is a lesbian, so what? The point is, people are using innuendo to break down her nomination. What if she is not? Is it right to continue to cast her as such? What if she is? Does this mean she is unqualified to hold the office?

Point of fact, nobody, (except her) knows...and no one should care. It's her privacy, and she should not be abused by anyone, gay or straight.

I have no idea why that is some kind of "problem".

Here's the thing about innuendo, even though I have no case, I allude you are a thief. Now, you have to spend a lot of time showing you are not a thief.

Same thing goes for what has been posted about me from time to time, I've been called a bigot, but I am not. Once the allegation is made, people want to believe it.

Point is, this woman's privacy is being invaded, that should not happen to anyone, her, you, me, or anyone else.

If she is a lesbian, and wants to tell the world that, fine...but to just "allege" or make a baseless statement is a case for slander. What if she's straight? What if she's bi? What if she has no sex life at all...who cares?

[Prism]

31. Because you think it's a "privacy" issue.

Asking about the most important relationships in an individual's life is only a "privacy issue" where LGBT individuals are concerned. You think merely wondering and asking about her most significant relationships is some kind of "invasion".

You felt strongly enough about this to post a highly offensive article that brings back seriously crazy memories for a lot of us. They usually went like this:

Co-workers discuss their families, children, relations, etc. A gay co-worker says "My boyfriend and I are having a date night tonight. I'm excited." Then a co-worker suddenly goes "I don't want to hear about your sex life!" Happens all. the. time. And it never gets any less offensive. That is the frame that author wrote in, and it's infuriating. It's even more infuriating that we even have to explain it to people. Yet here we are, thanks.

With heterosexual political figures, no one - and I do mean no one - trots this privacy line out. "Oh my god, he was married? I don't want to know about that! Stop asking! It's private!" Yeah, when was the last time you had dozens of people laying that down? Never.

And therein lies the homophobia.

As for "People will use it against her nomination." So what? We are the party in power, for god's sake. Do we ever stop trembling in abject fear that some Republican somewhere will say something? They would oppose her if she were married for 30 years and had 2.3 adorably perfect children.

There's no innuendo here. We are straight up asking. Robert Gibbs has been making the most bizarre evasions in response. Seriously strange answers coming from him that are making it worse.

A simple yes or no would suffice. This is a major, soon-to-be powerful figure. We deserve the basics. Her significant past relationships are part of her biography and part of her basics.

[rasputin1952]

32. You made the point though...

if someone comes out and states their stature, it's one thing...to allege is something entirely different.

The point is, it's up to Kagan to state anything she pleases, not for others to speculate about.

Now, with others, when they espouse the "virtues" of heterosexual relationships, and then get caught in a hypocritical situation, I have no problem at all with them being crucified, it is the hypocrisy that is the issue, not their proclivities. I don't care that Craig got caught in a shot at BR sex...what I care about is that he was a virulent opponent of the GLBT community, while all the time, doing precisely what he was willing to beat others over the head with.

If Kagan wishes to come out and say something, i have no problem at all with that, regardless of how it plays out. In the mean time, I respect her privacy in matters that are hers alone.

[Prism]

33. The President said biography matters.

Her significant relationships are part of her biography. To excise them is to leave out a significant and informative portion of an individual's life and how their thinking may be influenced and shaped by the people around them.

It matters.

When making his decision, the President no doubt asked about her life. Her relationships are a huge chunk of that. If he feel biography matters, why can't we? What's the difference here? Are we to ignore the President's own criteria for choosing a nominee?

Why is it a secret? And why is it only a secret with her? As I said, we knew about Sotomayor's marriage and divorce, and no one said a single solitary word.

Why the attempt to enforce some kind of radio silence on Kagan? I have been reading about the least significant portions of this person's life all day, and yet when it comes to her relationships, zip, zilch, nada. There are so many crickets in the official media, I'm starting to wonder if we're about to experience a modern day Exodus re-enactment.

It's highly unusual, and Robert Gibbs' answers are only highlighting how odd it is to have this giant blank space in regards to Kagan.

She will be a Supreme Court justice of the United States. We have the right to know the very basics about the individual.

[rasputin1952]

37. To you, perhaps her private life might be of

great importance...to me, I could care less, unless she's a convicted felon, or has serious mental problems; I will give her the benefit of her privacy.

This is not a challenge, but would you post all of the "significant" portions of your life, (no, I do not want you to, that is personal info), even if say one, two or more of those people you would include would not want you too?

You are you, she is she, whatever her reasons are for remaining silent on this issue are, I can respect that. Why others can't, is a little beyond me.

[rasputin1952]

24. I just received this e-mail from the NCJW, to which I belong...

I am happy to see they are backing her...Here's a link that is in line w/my way of thinking about this nominee. I want an intelligent Justice that can think on his/her feet, I think Kagan is an excellent nominee.


NCJW Endorses Supreme Court Nominee Solicitor General Elena Kagan

May 10, 2010, Washington, DC -- The National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) today endorsed Solicitor General Elena Kagan as an Associate Justice to the US Supreme Court. NCJW President Nancy Ratzan released the following statement:

"NCJW applauds President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Justice Stevens has been a champion for constitutional values and a bridge builder during his long tenure on the court. General Kagan shares these characteristics. She is eminently qualified to serve on our nation’s highest court, bringing a record of legal brilliance and the unique and valuable perspective of a legal career in public service and academia. When Elena Kagan takes her seat, there will be three women on the court -- a significant historic advance.

<snip>

http://www.ncjw.org/content_4366.cfm?navID=218

BTW...I'm a male, and have been a supporter of the NCJW for over 5 years.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. The heterosexual community loves to claim it does not care

about people being gay, but the laws on the books would argue that such is not the case. If straight Democrats did not care about others being gay, there would be no Prop 8. And it passed. So who cares? Straights do. And as long as they do, it matters. You can not one day speak out against equality in the name of God and then expect everybody to act casual about it for an individual. It does not work that way, and the anti equality rhetoric is what gives rise to this, and so I say take it to those who use that rhetoric in the first place, for they are making the rules and setting the tone.
And this idea that being gay is a label, not a state of being, is downright insulting. By the way.

[rasputin1952]

25. Please do not lump all heterosexual individuals like that...

there are varying degrees of support, right down to no support among heterosexuals. The "no support" group is shringking every day, due in a lrge part to straights and gays comeing together to push for equality.

There have been very positive moves forward over the past 5 years. A lot of this has to do with heterosexual allies of the GLBT community. To just lump everyone together as somehow uncaring is an injustice to those who have fought long and hard for equality.

[FreeState]

22. This is complete garbage IMO - heres my proof in pictures

Sexual orientation doesnt matter? It should not be used as an excuse to exclude but it does matter, if it didn't these pictures would have less people in them:

[ruggerson]

27. Please make an OP of this, Free State

maybe some of it will finally sink in.

[Starry Messenger]

36. +100, 000

[QC]

38. Who are those people standing next to the justices?

Law clerks?

[ruggerson]

26. This is profoundly offensive homophobic drivel

n/t

[PM Martin]

28. 'Sully's' strange infatuaion with Obama continues.

He loves Obama but not everything he does nor does he approve of his appointments.
The Barebacker moralist did not like Sonia Sotomayor at all.

[JI7]

29. what about her partner ? there is nothing wrong with being gay and this makes it seem like that

[JI7]

30. and most straight people don't announce they are straight either

[FreeState]

34. Unless you count bringing their opposite sex spouse to every hearing and swearing in n/t

[JI7]

35. exactly, isn't that the case with Kagan ?

we know of her partner the way we know of other's spouses. but nobody goes around saying "i'm hetero" . so the fact that Kagan isn't going around saying i'm gay doesn't mean anything.

if Kagan is still with someone i think that person shoudl be able to sit behind and support her as Alito and other's spouses did.

[FreeState]

41. I disagree with you here

When someone gets legally married they put in the record they are heterosexual - assuming they dont live in one of the very few places that offer state or district wide equality. Its public and out there weather they bring their spouse into the public or not.

This is just one more way the stigma of being gay is further pressed into our homophobic society IMO.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. Rasputin, I say this with all sympathy and sincerity

You may feel blind-sided by the tone of responses in this thread. If so, I understand.

It's partly generational. (We are both old enough to be considered old by the young.)

For society to afford gays particular privacy is a practical benefit in that people can evade some persecution but it is not a blessing. It is a stigma. (And society is essentially offering protection from itself.)

We do not afford heterosexuals that privacy regarding their identity. Those of us who are broad-minded afford them privacy regarding their embarrassing details. Particular sexual proclivities, affairs, whether the spark has gone out of their marriage.

We wouldn't ask Hillary if she and Bill have had sex since the Lewinsky business. And we do not NEED to ask her the more basic stuff... is she straight? We know she is. Has Bill ever ejaculated in her vagina? We know he has. They have a child.

We know all sorts of things and those things added to our rounded picture of Hilary as a human being and potential President and potential Secretary of State.

Your belief that Kagan's orientation is a private affair is simultaneously civilized and problematic. I appreciate it for what's good in it. Of course we don't want nominees to face potentially embarrassing questions about things we feel are their own affair.

But the fact we think non-hetero orientation should be a private matter is, itself, stigmatizing because heterosexuality is in no way private. Fucking is private, not heterosexuality. People wear rings to advertise it. In an office they have a photographic proclamation on their desk in the form of family pictures and some would look askance if they did not. The gay employee is "free" only to play a neutered and isolated person of mystery. Just as Kagan is afforded the 'out' of being considered a lonely woman incapable of or wholly disinterested in forming a love bond with another human being. (I don't think I would want someone on the court who had never had sex, for instance. That's not private life, it's a fundamental element of the sort of rounded human experience many people expect of all judges.)

The article you posted is seriously messed up. It's not your fault. And (unfortunately) most readers of it will not note its problems.

I do not fault you for posting it. It's an article and (despite DU assumptions) people are not responsible for every word of an article they post.

But the responses that may seem flabbergasting are quite sincere.

[ruggerson]

40. thanks, Kurt. Very well said.

[rasputin1952]

42. From Mother Jones, and additional piece on Kagan...

For the record, all I'm trying to do in all of this is get opinions on why any discussion of her sexuality has any validity in the process.


<snip>

...Buried in the many debates over whether it's even appropriate to consider someone's sexual orientation as part of the confirmation process is the unspoken acknowledgement that Kagan must, after all, be gay. Which is sad, because for all the pundit chatter about how a woman landing a Supreme Court gig demonstrates the great strides women have made in the workplace, the Kagan-is-a-lesbian meme suggests that there is still hostility directed at powerful women who dare tread in a man's world. Kagan's confirmation would elevate the number of sitting female Supreme Court justices to a record of—gasp!—three, but the legal world is still very much a sausage fest. The women who succeed in breaking into those clubby confines and thriving there don't do it by acting like ladies; ergo, the argument goes, they must be lesbians.

There's not much else to explain the persistence of the rumors about Kagan. After all, here's a woman who has been in the public sector for most of her career. Kagan endured a grueling confirmation hearing before the US Senate a year ago, one that took place with the unspoken understanding that she was a contender for the high court. Harvard Law, where she was dean, isn't exactly a warm, fuzzy place where everyone holds hands and sings "Kumbaya." It's populated by people who litigate as a hobby, and who in all likelihood would have outed Kagan long ago if it served their purposes. But most telling: There is absolutely no public evidence that she has ever had a same-sex relationship. No jilted lovers have told all to the Enquirer. The total sum of the evidence lies in the postings of four anonymous students (or alleged students) on Epinions. Overall, the case for her gayness seems to rest on a pretty thin argument that goes something like this:

* She kicked military recruiters off the Harvard Law campus because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
* She looks like a lesbian.
* She's single and childless, has been known to smoke cigars and play poker.
* She looks like a lesbian.
* Jeffrey Toobin won't say whether she brought a date to his wedding.

That's it. You could make a better case that Kagan is simply a celibate workaholic, given the paucity of information that's leaked out about her personal life thus far.

<snip>

Gossiping about the sexuality of Washington powerbrokers has become sort of a national pastime. But the stakes—and the vitriol—seem to go up substantially when powerful women crash the beltway frat party. And while Sullivan might think that sexual orientation has become as bland a biographical detail as Jewishness, the unfortunate truth is that, unlike him, most of those suggesting Kagan has something to hide aren't rooting for her to come out so she can advance the cause of gay rights. They just want to knock a powerful woman down a few notches.


http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/elena-kagan-gay-rumors-supreme-court


By all accounts of those who know this woman, she is exceptionally intelligent, knows law inside an out, and can handle the job w/the best of them...isn't that what counts?