The politics of sex has been my turf for well over 16 years. This latest installment about Elena Kagan adds a new element that we’ve never encountered nationally.
Between Andrew Sullivan’s obsession with questioning whether Trig is Sarah Palin’s baby, wanting to know if Elena Kagan is gay, it’s hard to tell if he’s mindlessly curious or simply has an unrelenting problem with powerful women. Regardless, Elena Kagan is now getting the Andrew Sullivan treatment.
He’s not quite as offensive as Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) who thinks the public should not only know whether Ms. Kagan is gay, but prematurely judges anyone unfit who is. After all, you just can’t trust those homos with the law, you know?
I’m not sure what to make of Sen. Sessions comment, which seems sort of a non sequitur and comes compliments of Politico:
Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Monday he had no problem supporting an openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court. “I can vote for a gay nominee – we’ll just have to see,” Sessions (R-Ala.) told reporters Monday afternoon. “That’s just not the test really; the thing that I’m concerned about is high legal quality.”
And how exactly did this subject come up?
You can read the other circulating rumors on the subject for yourself.
The White House may love that the left is not thrilled with Ms. Kagan, because Pres. Obama is always delighted when he can pick fights with the people who got him elected. But they are not in the least prepared for the sexuality rumor that is now front and center on day one.
Sexuality is not an issue to be a justice of the Supreme Court, as I’ve said already.
The Catch 22 is that if it’s not, what’s the big deal with Ms. Kagan revealing her personal life, regardless of where that leads?
Answer: Because we all know that any nominee being gay would be a big deal to the right-wing gas bags who drive the negative campaign on Supreme Court nominees, which is played on a scorched earth battlefield.
All this rumor mongering, no doubt nudged along by Ben Domenech’s CBS blog brouhaha, but also by the right who thinks an unmarried woman of a certain age, especially if she looks a certain way, has to be gay reveals the emotional and sexual immaturity of America. We impeached a president with an amazing economic record for a consensual affair, yet we let a president and an entire Administration that concocted false evidence about WMDs in a country in the oil rich Middle East off the hook for taking us to war on lies.
We have our priorities.
So, how can anyone be surprised we’re now dealing with the is Elena Kagan gay rumor?
There is also this weird post from the Nation, which begins with Andrew Sullivan’s sordid sexual background, as the writer takes after Sullivan for his rambling ruminations on Kagan’s sexuality. It’s entitled “Elena Kagan Is Not Gay.”
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?
The author of the post doesn’t know if Kagan’s gay, though the Nation made sure to title the post in a manor that rendered judgment, just in case anyone thought they were unsure, as the author of the piece clearly is. When the Nation is openly uncomfortable with subject matter like this you know we’re headed for trouble.
But this is America, where the truth has not yet set gays free. We won’t even let military soldiers serve openly and these are people taking incoming for our country. It’s why Bill Kristol is starting the Kagan Hates the Military mantra.
The gay rumor simply gives the wingnuts an open playing field to dance on her reputation hoping it can be made into a graveyard.
I don’t care if Kagan is gay. However, I do care that these rumors are swirling and everyone is acting like to be gay is something shameful.
“It’s not anything I’m going to get into,” was Gibbs’ reply today. Good luck with that, because when you have HotAir already asking if Ms. Kagan’s sexuality will be an issue I’d say that whether the White House likes it or not it already is.
Kagan wasn’t my first choice. But if it turns out that she is gay my opinion of her might increase dramatically. Whether she remaids in the closet or not. Peace
“Kagan wasn’t my first choice. But if it turns out that she is gay my opinion of her might increase dramatically. Whether she remaids in the closet or not. Peace”
Unless this is said tounge in cheek this is one of the dumber postings at this site in a while.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if she’s gay. She’s a corporate fluffer, that’s enough for me.
I’m not surprised that sexuality would trump philosophy for a Supreme Court nominee, but it is tremendously depressing.
Leaving you in a state of confusion unable to fathom my meaning makes my day. Here’s a clue: “Whether she remains in the closet or not.” Noodle which came first, the chicken or the egg? Peace
I think it would be great if there was a gay justice on the Supreme Court, but it would not be about who they are, it should be if they follow the constitution and not their political positions. I think Kagan will be for the corporations and not for the people. I think there was many others out there that could have been nominated. But President Obama decided to go with Kagan.
hey- yall see the new gop emem- why didnt obama pick a man! on cnn this gop dude was on with toobin and he said- “Im sad we dont have a nominee with a bowtie today.” i almost fell out of my chair. holy crap. bowers has a thesis that in the 1st 48 a nominee is made or fallen. im not so sure he is right in this case. i think she will get confirmed judging by history. but with 5,000 papers being released by the clinton exec recs on kagan u gotta wonder what will come out that will piss off the left she will need and the rightwing will have of course a happy time with it. i just have this feeling what appears to be a sleepy nomination will soon become a very wild one.
la times on kagan at clinton wh. oh there will be loads of stuff in those archives. kagan drafted clinton exec orders on gun control and the nra is ready to go apeshit over her nomination-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-kagan-profile-20100511,0,1643110,print.story
This country is way too concerned about sex. It’s as though sex is the ruling issue in this country. We need to grow up. I don’t care what a person’s sexual orientation is – the only issue for me is: are they qualified?
I haven’t made up my mind about Kagan yet, though I’m inclined to have some negative thoughts about the choice Obama made in picking her.
However, I think you will find historical evidence that many of those nominated to the Court have offered opinions that ran counter to what was expected. She could surprise us if elevated to the high bench, just as Chief Justice Earl Warren, nominated by Eisenhower surprised us with his decisions (Brown v. Board of Education). Nixon’s choice of Blackmun, the author of the Roe v. Wade decision, was also a big surprise to us.
Taylor:
Andrew’s response to Kegan’s nomination isn’t surprising to me, another gay man, at all. Given how ambiguous the Obama Administration is about issues such as DADT or DOMA the LesBiGay Community is a bit on edge these days. Frankly we really don’t know where the Big O is on these things so we are in the mode of searching for signs and reading tea leaves.
Also, I’m not sure if he was the first or was a responder to stuff coming from the nutty right. Don’t have the time right now to construct a time line on that -
By-the-by, its stunning to me that I am actually defending Andrew Sullivan – while we both share a fascination with beards politically we are often on opposite sides of the fence. Guess my view of him has improved since he’s been under attack for supporting Palestinian rights. Seems that the New Republican has made attacking him as their personal cause celeb these days – they don’t like it when folks don’t view the mess in the Middle East in the AIPAC approved way.
Kagan has been groomed for this nomination for years and years. Look at her resume. If anyone believes that all of those bright young women and men are not handpicked to attend the prestigious colleges and universities where they are further culled to become our future leaders than your living in fantasyland. Nothing is left to chance. If you were a part of the upper crust would you leave your very survival to the whim of the masses? Peace
“Kagan has been groomed for this nomination for years and years. Look at her resume.”
THAT’S RIGHT!! The illuminatee got together over slaughtered christian children and after drinking their blood swore an oath to GROOM SOME JEWESS LAW STUDENT for the Supreme Court of the United States!! Then they took an unbaptized infant and rendered it’s fat to annoint her and flew her away in a black helicopter blah,blah,blah shithouseratcrazy blah.
Anyone else reminded of Janet Reno? I can’t remember exactly what she said, but it was somewhat amusing, though also infuriating that she had to confront it at all. I agree with Imhotep in that Kagan has prepared for this eventuality for years and years, including being careful not to express personal opinions for years and years (which I think is kind of weird, by the way).
I don’t care if she’s gay. I think having to confront this nonsense is depressing. If she is, fine and if she wants to remain in the closet, why should she not get to?
I’m also not crazy about this pick. Her mind might be brilliant (and boy I’m sick of that word — is EVERTYHING associated with this administration “brilliant?”) but she seems essentially a corporate type. And I don’t care if 40 years ago a few justices were selected who weren’t judges; it seems to be actual experience arguing cases might be useful for a justice.
“Gay isn’t some genetic or soulful essence; it’s a name you call yourself” — Sullivan.
An odd comment, at least to me. “Lesbian” is a fundamental piece of who I am, and while that therefore means it is a “name (I) call myself,” it’s more than that, and just as significant, it’s one of several appropriate “names.”
More importantly: Of course Kagan’s real or perceived sexual orientation should make no difference. Of course, in fact, it does. In this case, both to those who use it as a reason to question / reject her — just more of the same judgmental mentality.
And to the Obama administration, clearly the LGBT communities have our assigned roles. In this case, if they failed to realize this would come up, someone did a less than great job in thinking it through. But maybe it isn’t a failure, or even just an oversight, but a strategy: they’ve got some on the right doing their usual “homosexuals are bad and scary” routine; and thereby they’ve provided some on the left with a neat “homosexuals are bad” proponents as target. Maybe it’s all a distraction, an effort to avert attention from things like executive power, corporate power, etc. Or maybe it’s just all politics as usual, with less and less pretense that the SCOTUS is non-political.
It seems unlikely as a strategy,I mean can you imagine the conversation….we are going to allow you to be put through the ringer over your perceived sexuality so we can distract from your corporate friendliness…okay?
It is so dumb,dumb,dumb that we are going to have this stupid conversation it is so boring and immature.Could this country just grow up please!
Andrew Sullivan should look up the statistics on Down Syndrome and see how extremely rare it is in young parents.He has a very creepy mind IMHO.
I’d guess your summary via “dumb, dub, dumb” is an accurate description, LL
. I really don’t think this was a “strategy,” but the outcome does include the distraction possibilities. Mostly, though, it’s dumb, with serious consequences.
Sorry, but I don’t agree that questions about Elena Kagan’s sexuality are out of line. Now that they’ve arisen, the easiest way to put them to rest is for her to address them! There’s a glaring double standard here: Nobody has any problem when Black or Jewish or Puerto Rican justices are held up as role models for their respective communities; but Gay Americans are supposed to be OK with a Gay justice who hides in the closet? Here’s another case of society imposing shame on the discussion of homosexual orientation. Come on now, people! It’s the 21st century already! When are we going to get beyond that kind of prejudice?
The prospect of having a closeted Lesbian or Gay man on the Supreme Court does not sit well with me. I’m openly Gay, I made a conscious choice not to hide or lie about who I am, and it was all about personal integrity. I’d like to see that same personal integrity exhibited by public officials, especially jurists. There are now openly Gay judges in the American judicial system; why is it acceptable for a SCOTUS justice to be less honest than a justice on a lower court? In my opinion, if Ms. Kagan refuses to say whether or not she is Lesbian, it’s a legitimate character issue! All too often, I’ve seen where needing to maintain a locked closet door leads elected officials to take hostile policy positions that negatively affect LGBT Americans; I fear the same may be true of a closeted jurist.
And let’s face it, whether we approve or not, the media scrutinizes public figures in ways they haven’t done before. We can moan and bitch and pine for the way things used to be, or we can be realistic and adjust to the way things are now. LGBT status is no longer a topic that’s only fit for discussion in furtive whispers. In 2010, Gay Americans are living openly in unprecedented numbers! There are openly Gay representatives in Congress now, and loads of openly Gay aides in all three branches of government. It makes no sense to cling to an archaic 1950s mindset that promotes the illusion of universal heterosexuality. Isn’t there too much deception on Capitol Hill already?
Frankly, in a healthy society, discussion of LesBiGay orientation would be no big deal. It would not be considered sexually prurient, because it isn’t! Being Gay is not and has never been about sex acts; it’s about gender expression, of which sexuality is a merely a part. What’s more, saying that you’re Gay is no more a revelation about your “personal life” than saying that you’re Straight is! You’re not inviting the spectators into your bedroom when you come out of the closet; you’re not even revealing who you sleep with. Straight people have never hidden their affectional preferences, and it’s unnatural for Gay people to do so. Sure, we know why they hid in the past, but times have changed. If equality is truly our goal, we’re going to have to dispense with these dumb double-standards. Right now would be a great time to start.
In my opinion, if Ms. Kagan refuses to say whether or not she is Lesbian, it’s a legitimate character issue!
Very interesting assessment to consider.
I hear where you’re coming from, and can agree with you in an abstract sense, but unfortunately – and it pains my heart to have to say this in the year 2010 – we as a society are still not there yet.
I have to disagree with your point that someone’s refusal to identify their sexual orientation publicly is “a legitimate character issue,” and would suggest that your insistence to that effect probably says more about you than about the other person. Rather, I would offer that coming out is an inherently personal decision that’s really not for me or you to make on someone else’s behalf.
I’m genuinely happy that you’re out and about as a proud gay person, and am pleased that it’s worked for you. But just like discussions over religion and spirituality, what’s you think is best for you may not necessarily be what’s in the best interest of others. Rather than looking at this moment as an opportunity to break down what you correctly label as “dumb double-standards”, I’d like this to be about nurturing a collective respect for individuals and the choices that they might make regarding how they live out their own personal lives.
And to be perfectly honest, I’d really hate to risk losing a woman of Dr. Kagan’s caliber in the Supreme Court, simply because of some self-absorbed raging queens like Andrew Sullivan decide to put their own personal gay-affirmative needs ahead of the welfare of the country as a whole, and thus act accordingly.
Look, we don’t really need yet another starry-eyed proponent of GLBT rights willing to martyr herself professionally for the cause. I’d much rather see someone emplaced on the bench who will have genuine empathy with the outcast and the oppressed, and thus factor that into her decision making processes in cases that come before the High Court. That’s what will eventually and effectively break down these odious double-standards.
I would therefore urge you to choose your battles wisely, and resist the temptation to turn this nomination into another “Charge of the Light Brigade” moment that ultimately accomplishes little for all the political mayhem and personal wreckage left in its wake, and leaves the GLBT movement pretty much back where it started.
The world is not black-and-white, and we need to learn to accommodate ourselves to its various bright and pastel hues and accompanying shades of gray. And for that – CAUTION: Stereotype Ahead – who’s better qualified to project proper color coordination than a gay man?
Aloha, and Godspeed to you and yours.
First of all, this person you want on the SCOTUS bench, the one with empathy for the oppressed? There’s no guarantee that Elena Kagan is be this person. There’s quite a bit of doubt being expressed about that, in fact. You’re very presumptuous about her values.
You’re also very wrong that refusing to answer the sexual orientation question isn’t a character issue. Within a few weeks, I expect a firestorm of criticism to erupt when Senators question Ms. Kagan about her positions on important legal issues. I understand from Glenn Greenwald and others monitoring the Obama administration’s confirmation strategy that she will refuse to answer. Pundits will charge that those refusals go to her character, and they’ll be right. Yet refusing to confirm her affectional preference, a fact we know about every other SCOTUS justice, doesn’t?
Gay Americans, as well as the rest of America, deserve forthright answers from Ms. Kagan to all pertinent questions. Her sexual orientation is pertinent because it’s being used to attack her suitability for SCOTUS, and because it could have direct bearing on her work as a justice( a closeted Lesbian, ruling on Gay Rights issues . . . I doubt people on either side of the ideological divide would be happy with that). If Ms. Kagan would only speak up, she could stop the whispering campaign cold. If she spoke up forcefully, she could put to shame those wingnuts who are spreading the scurrilous idea that Gay people don’t belong in our nation’s highest offices. She could display a little bit of courage, whatever her sexual orientation might be, and she’d look better for it. Look what a courageous counter-attack did for Clarence Thomas, and he wasn’t even telling the truth!
There’s a precedent for that kind of courage, too. In 1993, Janet Reno stepped forward during her nomination fight and put to rest speculation that she might have been a Lesbian. Why should we expect less forthrightness from a Supreme Court nominee than we got from a United States Attorney General?
The goals of the Gay Rights movement, which would bring America closer to its Democratic ideals, destigmatize Gay identity and curb sexual orientation harassment against everyone (not just law professors aspiring to rarefied stature) are far and away more important than what might happen to Elena Kagan’s nomination if she admitted being Lesbian. It’s in nobody’s best interests to have Ms. Kagan remain in the closet (if indeed she is), not even Ms. Kagan herself. If she’s so determined to keep secrets, the woman might be susceptible to blackmail, and what an alarming set of possiblitities that raises!
Here’s the bottom line for me, though: I don’t want to see a craven opportunist on the Court, somebody willing to lie, conceal and/or evade in order to achieve power! The Senate has already seated at least one SCOTUS justice who’s guilty of that kind of behavior: the aforementioned Clarence Thomas. What’s a matter, Donald, isn’t he craven enough for you? If he isn’t, and you’re ready for another one in the same mold, then never you mind what my values say about me! Your own values are sending a message that’s anything but flattering.
“Pastel hues”, “shades of gray” and emaciated Gay jokes you should be ashamed to write down have nothing to do with the subject at hand. I’m talking about personal integrity, and I can’t think of a quality this country needs more in a Supreme Court nominee. It’s not about party affiliation or nuances of ideology with me; it’s about moral fitness to hold the position of SCOTUS judge! If the candidate sees morality (and I’m not talking about sexual prudery here) as just something else to be compromised in pursuit of a goal, then she’s not fit for the job. More cynical careerism, more blind partisanship, more political tunnel vision, more retrograde thinking in regard to Gay identity, more valueing of individual ambition over the common good . . . in other words, more of what you’re advocating, that’s exactly what America doesn’t need.
What this country needs, both individually and collectively, is more principle and less compromise of principle. A bit less sarcasm would be advisable, too, Donald, especially when what you’ve said is so long on pomposity and so short on substance.