"Well how do you know there isn't already a gay person in the Cabinet/Supreme Court/etc.?"

What is the deal with this new DU argument? I'm fairly sure it isn't a genuine attempt at discussing the value of having a diverse group of people in government.

Is it teasing? Is it a weak attempt at heterosexual snark? A sarcastic faux rejection of heterosexual privilege?

It irritates the hell out of me that any suggestion that President Obama should think about appointing a GLBT American to an important office is now repeatedly met by this quip.

Just sayin'.

(And, no, I don't get it either. I think it's way past time to get my homophobia bingo card out)

n/t

who are willing to be out in every sphere of their lives -- and even out to the media.

but personally I'd rather see an agnostic woman of moderate means and a skin tone other than porcelain and a sexual orientation that's nobody's business but her own (and in my ideal world, nobody would give a flying fart in the rain). And also she would have Barbara Jordan's comprehension of the Constitution.

I know that looking at the current array of justices, a Martian would never guess that more than half of the U.S. citizens are female, or that less than half are Roman Catholic.

I don't think it's snark or sarcasm or teasing to point out that many gay people may be in high office already -- We just easily recognize those who are black or female but not necessarily those who are gay.

Names, please. Pretending like they might exist just because you don't think you can tell someone's sexual orientation on sight doesn't mean that there is any great chance that there are gay people serving in high office. Or is pretending good enough if it means straight people can feel that they aren't really discriminating against LGBT Americans.

I don't really care who gets the nomination as long as he or she is a qualified person who will uphold the constitution the way it should be. I do think, however, that having a Supreme Court that truly represents the people is hundreds of years overdue in this country.

Note I said "may" -- I am not "pretending" they exist -- I am assuming we have gay people in high office and you are assuming we don't. So we can't agree there. I do agree we need to have openly gay people appointed/elected to high office, and I'm sure that day is coming. (but I live in Iowa, and have reason to be optimistic about such things...:))

A name to consider -- John Roberts. If I had to bet money. And then there's Barney Frank, who's hardly a failure in the vote-getting department.

As I'm sure you know. Now opposite marriage isn't the best indicator of a person's sexual orientation, but I'll consider it as strong a proclamation as any.

And Barney Frank certainly isn't a closeted secret gay appointee.

You're far more optimistic than me about when we'll see an openly gay American appointed to a cabinet post. I really hoped we would see it with President Obama, but now I feel it will probably be 2017 or later before it happens.

but it never turned him straight. Neither did having several children with her. (And he viewed himself as gay, by the way, not as bisexual.)

And there are many many people like him still out there.

Speculating that Justice Roberts might be gay only feeds into this idea that President Obama doesn't have to think about appointing gay people to high offices because there are already closeted gays there.

Your speculation is a perfect example of what I'm talking about in this thread.

and there are many gay people who still choose not to be out publicly. For all the professional, high level gay people who aren't public about their sexuality, what is Obama supposed to do? Have the FBI conduct an investigation? If he discovers that someone is gay, ask him or her if they would take the job on condition that they be outed?

As to your other point, there are many married gay people out there, especially in the age groups that would be considered for high level jobs. The idea that marriage constitutes "proof" that someone is straight is pretty unrealistic.

Do we now automatically assume that every married person over 50 is a closet case? Or even a significant minority of married people over 50?

to straight people, yes.

Because that is the real question.

like him. You clearly would be surprised at the number of 30 yr marriages that finally break up because one of the partners is gay.

:shrug:

That's how I know there are millions like me out there. With millions of parents who aren't fully out and may never be.

The good news is that the younger children are growing up in a different world -- but even now, in much of the country (particularly the red states and the rural areas), being openly gay is still not the norm.

That's why how many closeted gyas there are, or aren't, isn't the issue.

Given that Obama can't force people to out themselves to the media.

>>Stanford Law School professor Kathleen Sullivan, widely considered one of America’s top constitutional scholars, is being mentioned as a possible replacement for Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who has announced he will retire at the end of the court’s current term.

Sullivan’s name appears on lists compiled by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and numerous law blogs. She is the founder and director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, and served as dean of Stanford Law School from 1999 to 2004.<<

http://www.gaypolitics.com/2009/05/01/out-lesbian-a-con... /

Do you view being gay as a bad thing? Being an adult child of an alcoholic is universally seen as a bad thing - the groups are for recovery. Do you think that you have been damaged because your father is gay?

If so, it probably means that you view being gay as a bad thing, which would definitely bias your feelings about gay people.

COLAGE is an off-shoot of PFLAG. The founders of the group believed that just as gay people benefit from a sense of community, so do their children.

www.colage.org

PEOPLE AND PLACE
COLAGE was created for people just like you! In the United States alone, more than 10 million people have one or more lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/or queer parent(s). Today, COLAGE is the only national organization in the world specifically supporting children, youth and adults with LGBTQ parent(s). Using our experiences and creativity, COLAGE offers a diverse array of community building opportunities, education, leadership development and advocacy by and for folks with LGBTQ parents.

COLAGE COMMUNITY
Whether you already know lots of other people with LGBTQ parent(s), or always thought you were the only one, COLAGE is a source of friendship and understanding. It is a place where you can talk about your family with complete honesty and pride. COLAGE is an organization that accepts your family AND celebrates it! Welcome - You've Got a Friend in COLAGE!

Dr. Frist's line was busy.

That should not matter, right? :rofl:

I have no idea what I wrote that misled you thus.

I believe a public figure should be out if he/she wants to be out, and not out if he/she is not yet ready to be out, for whatever reason.

How in hell you can misunderstand that, I don't know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=128465&mesg_id=128480

>>Sal Minella (1000+ posts) Sun May-03-09 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
3. A rich Catholic gay white man would make some people happy I suppose
but personally I'd rather see an agnostic woman of moderate means and a skin tone other than porcelain and a sexual orientation that's nobody's business but her own...

I don't think it's snark or sarcasm or teasing to point out that many gay people may be in high office already -- We just easily recognize those who are black or female but not necessarily those who are gay. <<

The topic has been to support openly gay people who can fight for justice. It doesn't matter if Souter or Roberts are closet cases, or whatever distraction people want to float, they are not openly gay activists.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

would?

Seriously, a 53 year old single woman is not note worthy in our culture and no one would guess, wonder or suspect?

And, she should remain in the closet? :rofl:

professional public person, married or single, male or female, gay or straight or unknown???

There's a little of the National Inquirer-type curiosity in everyone, but I've noticed there's very little in people who have satisfying lives of their own.

I know a thirty-year old woman who has been celibate for two years because she hasn't yet run across a man she wants to share her life with (and yes she has had sexual relationships with men in the past). She is a great success at her job and enjoys it and puts a lot of energy into it, and trying to establish a dating life at is more hassle than she wants to deal with right now. Should we "guess, wonder, or suspect" about her?

I think women have a much easier time tamping down their sexual nature -- and unfortunately, professional success for a woman in our culture may demand it. (i.e. "family leave" is a bad joke if it costs you your job)

How often is a male candidate, during confirmation hearings, quizzed about the status of withholding taxes on the wages of the nanny tending his children? iow, it's impossible for me to believe that all women choosing to remain single and childless are closeting their sexuality.

and every political candidate has family photo-ops by the dozen.

It's not that people should hide their sexual orientation, in fact str8 people do not hide theirs.

Why should gays?

The main question is, if they are open, why should it matter any more than it does when str8 people talk about their family lives? It should not matter.

have family photo-ops by the dozen.

So how is anyone to know who is straight and who is gay? Except by asking, which is illegal?

Gay people should have the same right to be open about their family life.

why shouldn't gays be proud too?

Why assume a position now, suddenly, that it's nobody's business when it comes to gays?

illegal in a person choosing to mention that they are gay, or have a partner. I think it would be great if anyone did that in the vetting process. But Obama can't be the one opening up the question.

The straights are extremely OUT in that public display of heterosexuality.

denied to the press that he'd attempted to solicit gay sex in a public restroom. (Photos at Google images "Suzanne Craig.")

Gov. Jim McGreevey's wife (Dina) stood by his side as he resigned the governorship in New Jersey in 2004.

I'm still putting my money on John Roberts -- and unfortunately I expect him to be virulently anti-gay-rights as a justice, just like I expect him to be virulently anti-women's-rights (both of his children are adopted so he's on the "every-little-sperm-is-sacred" train).

If John Roberts is a closeted gay person then (1) I'm sorry he's felt compelled to remain closeted and (2) I hope the truth comes out (no pun intended) sometime during his term. Age-wise, he's somewhat on the cusp of the transition between the new generation's "gay is another normal" and the older generation's "homosexuality is a mental illness."

If Roberts is gay, I wish he'd come out publicly ASAP -- for the sake of the health of our society as a whole.

I'm hoping the Law School dean (was it Stanford?) is at the top of the list -- I would dearly love to see her on SCOTUS. And you and I would both be happy, right???

peace --

And I mean immediately and noisily. Hypocrites deserve no consideration, and they do not belong on the highest court in the land. But as long as he behaves himself, he may remain in whatever closet he chooses to inhabit.

In the real world, people are nosy, meddlesome busybodies on average.

In the course of job interviews many things come out, directly or indirectly.

Gays should not fear being open and yes it does matter that we can live openly.

It should not matter as far as getting the job.

In an ideal world. :sarcasm:

And are they willing to be publicly outed, if they haven't already?

"...but personally I'd rather see an agnostic woman of moderate means and a skin tone other than porcelain and a sexual orientation that's nobody's business but her own (and in my ideal world, nobody would give a flying fart in the rain). And also she would have Barbara Jordan's comprehension of the Constitution." sal minella.


Being an agnostic is a nobody's business.

Sexual affiliation, not so much.

Our society (now) tolerates a wide variety of religious beliefs -- variety in sexual matters, not so much. (Unless one is a Republican of course, in which case no behavioral standards of any kind apply.)

Scratch the "agnostic" and put in "non-Catholic" -- okay? (I think five Roman Catholics out of nine people is already more than a genteel sufficiency.) (Come to think of it, demographics-wise, it would make more sense if the court had five women and one Roman Catholic.)

R.C.'s comprise at least a fourth of the population.

So to be representational, we would need to have 2.25 Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court.

And we have more than twice that.

Opus Dei is behind that.

As a liberal Catholic, it makes me sick.

This remains:

I saw a photo of Pope John XXIII the other day and nearly burst into tears, remembering how humane and warm-hearted and gracious he was. :cry:

the bio contains lot's of hints about who the person is and what they want an employer to know.

Among them: "I am married, my wife Laura was a librarian, and I have two daughters." Bingo!

That's how it works.

If something like that is missing it will be asked indirectly. Might as well be open about your family life.

Instead of pretending it's "nobody's business but her own," as you suggested.

Including the official biographies of all of the sitting Supreme Court Justices except Souter who isn't married.

The official biography pdf from the Supreme Court website.

Gay people have families too. Not sure why suddenly some think it's better to sweep that under the carpet, unless it embarrasses some. :shrug:

I'm quite open. But it's pretty unrealistic to expect all GLBT to be the same way. They just aren't and I'm not going to hurt them any worse by forcing it on them. Yes... those of us who have the strength need to step forward. But lets not pretend its without consequence.

Or do you need visual evidence of heterosexual intercourse to believe that someone who is openly straight actually is, in fact, a heterosexual?

(As some sort of negative thing.) I have never seen a straight person try to hide the fact that they are married. In fact, I don't know a single one who doesn't talk about their spouses and family on a regular basis. Their family is who they are. We're pressured to lie about ourselves (even by just saying nothing), in ways straight people cannot easily imagine.

We need representation just as every other minority. We don't need some imaginary closeted gay person representing us, who actually works against our interests, we need someone who is courageous and out and proud.

when it was a criminal offense in many areas to be gay, and then a mental illness, and even today isn't comfortable being a gay media figure, would work against LGBT interests? A person appointed by Obama, who is not a right winger?

They tend not to mention their wives to their girlfriends, you know.

>>"It irritates the hell out of me that any suggestion that President Obama should think about appointing a GLBT American to an important office is now repeatedly met by this quip.

Well how do you know there isn't already a gay person in the Cabinet/Supreme Court/etc.?" hulkhogan<<

You are turning this into a discussion about: "And are they willing to be publicly outed, if they haven't already?" That's wrong.


The issue is: we need more openly gay activists in public service.

I just want the best person for the job. I hope Obama doesn't limit his choices by focusing on any particular group.

They really mean they don't want to limit the appointment to a group they don't think deserves it. And that goes for both sides of this discussion.

Why not give special consideration to members a number of various groups who, as yet in the 230+ year history of this country, have not been a part of the United States Supreme Court? That doesn't mean the eventual nominee will come from any of those groups, but it may take a bit of extra work on the White House's part to identify qualified candidates from those groups.

(edited to fix grammar)

is female.

:patriot:

you are dead wrong.

Let's say there were somebody on the Supreme Court who were so deep in the closet that nobody in Congress caught wind of it, and they got confirmed. Is that person going to vote in favor of equal rights, or is that person going to put up a front as a raging 'phobe so that nobody even thinks of the real truth?

Considering what we know of powerful closet cases who were eventually outed, the latter seems way more likely than the former.

PS But if Roberts or Scalia ever gets caught with some 19 year old rent boy in a cheap motel, I'll laugh so hard I'll piss myself.

would do as much for equal rights as Senator Larry Craig did.
(For those lacking clues, Sen Craig did NOT advance the cause of gay rights)

What you are saying is a very likely scenario. That's the last thing we need; a dishonest Supreme Court Justice.

It still boils down to honesty.

The gay people who are out professionally and in every other sphere in their life, who are even willing to be out to the media even, are -- in my humble opinion -- still a minority of gay people in general. My father, for example, in the last twenty years of his life gradually came out in his New York area community and in business (and lost a lot of business along the way) but he was never out when he visited my sister's family in Texas or his brother in the midwest.

If the goal is to have gay people represented in the Cabinet or Supreme Court, then it is very possible that we already have gay people in such positions who are not out to the media. If the goal is to have fully OUT gay people in those positions, people who are willing to have their sex lives be the subject of media attention, then we have a much smaller pool of potential appointees.

are fully out to all persons in every sphere of their lives -- and wouldn't mind being out in the media as well? Once we subtract all those people from consideration (the ones who don't want to be fully out), aren't we down to a very small pool of potential appointees?

Unfortunately, by definition it's impossible to count gay people who are unwilling to be counted as gay. But I think it's quite likely that there are already gay people among the offices mentioned in the OP.

Why can't anyone name them and provide proof about why they might be gay other than "they are in an opposite marriage and we all know what that means when they're republicans."?

Stevens has been opposite married twice.
Scalia has been opposite married for almost 50 years and has nine children.
Kennedy is opposite married.
Thomas has been opposite married twice.
Ginsburg is opposite married.
Breyer is opposite married.
Alito is opposite married.
Roberts is opposite married.

Souter hasn't been married, but apparently that is now irrefutable proof that he is straight.

He's probably a self-hating raging homosexual for all we know trying to suppress it by hiding it under his Catholic beliefs and producing 9 children.

Sorry, straight people, Scalia's one of yours.

You've got a case of raging double standard going there.

Because from what I can tell, a 40+ year marriage, photographs, nine children and public statements are not good enough proof for some of you.

Can you provide equal "proof" for all these alleged closet cases in the federal judiciary? I didn't think so.

There are no special identifiers, if the person chooses privacy, and it isn't legal to ask them.

That doesn't work for me, sorry.

at high enough levels to be considered for these positions? Can you name them?

There aren't many Barney Franks out there.

Maybe gay people should be encouraging each other to be more out, rather than pushing Obama to ask questions about sexuality that he's legally barred from asking.

There aren't publicly out federal justices or governors or other people at high levels because, for some reason, America has decided that they don't deserve to be appointed/elected to those positions.

the subject of media attention.

If they don't, how is Obama supposed to find out?

We are constantly told that an openly gay person can't possibly be elected to a high level position in government, then when we suggest that LGBT people be considered for appointed positions the argument is that there aren't enough of us who are qualified because there aren't any high level gay elected officials. And to suggest that there are already closeted gay appointees is just an attempt to quiet this frustration without addressing the real issue, which is the lack of LGBT representation in government. Closet cases do not represent the LGBT community, just as a visible minority who can pass and lives as a white person doesn't represent a visible minority community.

other than for the gay community to promote the appointments of specific gay people who are willing to be out to the media.

Especially in this age and professional group, between married "closet cases" and Barney Frank there is a vast middle ground of people who don't choose to have their sexuality be the subject of media attention. And Obama is barred from asking them.

and it started a huge flame war even here on DU. And it also resulted in yet another entirely openly heterosexual cabinet.

The Mr. Nice Gay approach doesn't work. We've tried it for years. It seems like the only thing that makes positive change is to be the squeaky wheel in the Democratic big tent.

quite a few authored by me. Search using my name and you can find them.

And it is the subject of media attention. Gays should expect the same level of interest, except, when we come out, we should also be treated the same as str8's, and family life admired and supported not judged.

After all gays aren't even allowed in the military openly.

It will out the person to Obama, but it will not ensure that the gay person is willing to be outed to the whole world.

not to be.

Why should prospective openly gay SCOTUS candidates be encouraged to be silent, under the false concern:"it's nobody's business but her own?"

As asked above by an OP?

I don't think he would, and I'd be disappointed in him if I thought he had.

We shall find out.

or could it possibly be that for other reasons she wasn't the best qualified?

before you preemptively suggest that the GLBT forum will accuse the President of discrimination.

he was asked about interpreting the Constitution and asked about strict constructionism and the right to privacy and did he think that interpreting that had any impact on marriage equality and he said "Yes!"

In another words the President does see that there are times when the Constitution has to be interpreted in modern times for modern needs.

I'll wait and see what the decision is and why when this important nomination is made public.

Yes, I am certain

... appointed to the SCOTUS , though that's what the history books say. Depends on how one wants to define "Jew".

As far as most American Jews are concerned ( as well as anyone who thinks excluding entire demographic groups from consideration is a DUMB and a WRONG idea) Brandeis was the first Jew... even if there were others of Jewsish ancestry and/or parentage who preceded him to the court; that is, of Jewish ancestry but praticed ...say, Unitarianism.

In other words, if someone is "in the closet" , it doesn't and SHOULDN'T count.

small percentage of the general population.

there are people who are successful in their careers -- in law, in politcs, etc -- who feel like they can not come out.

some liberals in an attempt to keep the lgbtiq community from being a target for social conservatives say certain things to get us to shut up.

the addendum to that is 'it will happen -- we're going to get there'. what ever that means.

can't legally inquire about people's sexuality? And many gay people at that level and in that age group aren't out professionally, much less to the media?

because there *might* already be closet cases in those positions, even though all of the available evidence suggests that isn't true.

If there are already gay appointees, then the suggestion is that there is no need to find more. So even pointing out that there might be closeted gay people serving in those positions is meant to devalue the suggestion that there need to be more LGBT Americans in appointed positions.

anti-gay rhetoric it doesn't reach a 'pat robertson 10' --

I'm just wondering how Obama is supposed to find them.

GLBT legal organizations, or to those who are cheif council to large national and international GLBT organizations, such as HRC. I have seen several appointments in my lifetime, and those of us outside the legal world have rarely even heard of the nominee until they are nominated. Not one well known person has been named in my lifetime. No Govs. No well known jurists or lawyers. No famous political figures at all. When the nominatios are announced, the fist question is always who the hell is that? So this routine of asking for a list is a bit much. I could not make a list of qualified nominees drawing from the entire pool, who knows that pool so well? Do you?

And the whole argument is off a bit, because you know you can not advertize for a Latino but there are calls for a Latino appointment. You can not question people to find out if they are Latino, you can not hire them for being Latino or reject them for being Latino. But is seems fine to discuss that such a choice would be muy excellente. I'd like a gay Latina, with a literary bent. But that's just me. And I do not have to be able to name a bunch of them to say 'what a great thing that would be'. And if I was assuming that there are not any...

I assume that there are well qualified gay people out there -- but I'm not assuming that there's an excellent candidate in this age group who will want to be publicly outed and the subject of media attention for his or her sexuality.

You asked how he could possibly find one, and I told you how he could. I assume he knows how. I'm assuming there would be dozens of qualified people. Based on what? nothing. Like your assumption.
Again, I'd point out that SCOTUS picks in my lifetime have never once been a person that was known by the general population until the nomination. So the whole dicussion is silly. How would anyone outside those circles really know the talent pool at all? I don't. You don't either. So it is unreasonable to ask for this list you demand. I could not name three women either, does that mean there are none?
And I'd really like to know why answering the question you asked promted you to declare that I assume Obama is not doing what I said he could do. You asked the question, not the President. You were wondering where you'd even begin to look for such an anomoly as a gay attorney or judge, and I told you. You asked. I answered. No where did I say anything about what I think Obama is doing or not doing. Why would you play that kind of a rhetorical game, I mean, why? To what end?
Ask a question than snap when you get an answer. But why?

Having openly gay people in public life sends a message and creates a role model.

All of those ideas that allege that there are already gays miss the political point of having openly gays in public life and the impact they might have on policy.

so far will want to do so now.

someone who is out and qualified should be considered?

we are an underrepresented community -- in spite of your personal assertions that some how closeted people represent us - after all roy cohn was a closted person in our community -- and how well did that work out?

herbert hoover was a closted gay person and how well did that work out -- ESPECIALLY for other closeted gay people?

But who, apart from Barney Frank, are they? Can you name Federal Judges who are public about their sexuality? Or governors?

On second thought, I doubt Frank could get through confirmation, since he had that problem with the companion he was paying with Senate funds (and who was running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment.)

of whether or not it should even be a goal.

to do something he legally can't do? To question people about their sexuality?

If you have a list of well-qualified, out gay people for the SCOTUS, I'd love to read it.

Isn't that what we should be doing? Promoting people who might otherwise be overlooked -- rather than expecting Obama to make illegal inquiries?

Why do we have list after list of female and visible minority candidates for this SCOTUS appointment, but not a similar list of GLBT candidates?

Please think about the real reason, and it doesn't include ENDA rules.

Why do we have lists of women candidates? Because we know they are women. Unfortunately, in most cases, we don't know who the gay candidates are. And Obama can't ask them.

These people can promote themselves, or their friends can promote them. But otherwise, I don't know how to identify them.

Or Joan Lobis, NY County Supreme Court?

or Rives Kistler, Oregon Supreme Court Justice?

or Virginia Linder, Oregon Supreme Court Justice?

or Rosalyn Richter, NY State Appellate Judge?

Any of these candidates are sufficiently qualified, and some even more qualified as the other straight candidates I've seen floating around.

But which of these candidates, in your opinion, are more than "sufficiently qualified"? I'd rather concentrate on the ones that are "even more qualified."

federal judiciary until 1994. And there appears to be only one openly gay federal judge in the entire history of the United States.



A 2006 article from USA Today


Straight people have made sure that we don't have a very long history of inclusion in this country. They've also made sure that we don't have a long list of qualified candidates for every open position.

judiciary level.

Women, who openly comprise more than 50% of the population, had to wait hundreds of years before Justice O'Connor's appointment; and there have only been two women in history appointed. And yet, we have many female candidates among federal judges. Why would it be justified to appoint a less qualified openly gay candidate over a well qualified woman federal judge or governor?

Maybe we should just continue to appoint straight white protestant men, because there is never any doubt about their qualifications.

are a number of women in the federal judiciary. I also can think of some well qualified women governors, but not openly gay governors.

For decades, when women complained about not being represented fairly in Congress and in the SCOTUS, the reply was that there weren't enough women lawyers at that level. Well, now there are.

But I have yet to see that there are a number of OPENLY gay candidates at that level.

closeted gay people in the federal judiciary enough of a reason to not even consider openly gay candidates. Which is part of the point of my original post.

I just don't think there are that many openly gay candidates in that age group and at that professional level. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Was she not really at that professional level?

Who were Republican as well?

She was probably the best they could do -- I'm not sure that's the case now though. There are many female Federal judges with excellent qualifications.

A lesbian would be great -- a two-fer, as they say. I'm just not in favor of a token candidate who isn't as well qualified as others.

Why slam the door closed behind her? All things being equal, it might be nice to get a talented gay person from the State Benches to further diversity. That would be a liberal thing to do...

Although she turned out to be much better than he.

If you are perfectly fine with getting yet another white straight male person on the Supreme Court, then why even bring up strawman arguments about closet cases?

whatever her sexuality is.

What are you doing in GLBT talking about closet cases? You're all over the map. What if the "well-qualified woman" was Condi Rice? I myself would like someone with demonstrated commitment to fair-minded legal decisions, no matter what gender or sexual orientation. It would be nice if some gay candidates were included, too.

Since I'm the daughter of a former "closet case," (who went on to live with a partner for 20 years) and I know many gay people who are not "out" in every sphere of their lives, I have some opinions on the issue. Sorry if you think I'm not entitled to them.

Of course it would be "nice if some gay candidates were included." And I'm sure Obama wouldn't eliminate a candidate because he or she is openly gay.

I just want to know what your point was...I guess you feel that someone who is in the closet "counts" towards diversity...I myself do not. I would just call that a difference of opinion, not censoring.

which sent me the message that you thought I didn't belong here.

What did you mean, then?

If someone is living in the closet then they are living a life of straight privilege free of many of the challenges that come with being an out gay person. Obviously they have the challenges that come with not living true to themselves, but that is a different issue. Until they come out and live out, they are going to have a very different perspective on life then someone living life out already. That is why diversity in the workplace is something to be encouraged. I would just think that anyone coming to this conversation would already be operating under this assumption. That's all I meant.

painfully aware of the issues of straight privilege. This is exactly what keeps most of them trapped there. Men and women ages fifty and above grew up in a culture where they could be arrested simply for being gay, where the "enlightened" view was that they were not criminals but mentally ill. Most of them married, and acknowledging their sexuality could have led to the loss of their children. And many of them still live in parts of the country that feel almost like the 1950's in terms of gay/straight relations. I wish that younger people today could be a little more compassionate toward their older peers, and less smug about "closet cases" among the older generation.

Also, you are neglecting to acknowledge that there are DEGREES of being out, and that the large majority of gay professional people over 50 probably are not completely, 100%, shout-it-to-the-media out-of-the-closet.

You have been assuming that everyone thinks like you, but that isn't necessarily the case, is it? Congratulations to younger gay people who have been out to the world ever since they came out to themselves. But have a heart for the older men and women who have had a different lifetime's experience.

whatever his or her gender or race is.

This group makes up what fraction of the general population, would you guess?

Women make up more than half of the population. But you think an out gay man would be more deserving than a straight woman of the next spot?

This is almost an impossible situation. Which is why factors like gender and sexuality should only come into play when we are talking about equally well-qualified candidates.

I would still like her or him on the Court.

And I do think an out gay man would be more deserving than a straight woman of the next spot. Women have already had two seats to LGBT Americans' zero. Furthermore, women have had hundreds of seats on the federal bench and LGBT Americans have had one.

That is one seat in the entire history of the United States.

Keep that in mind, please, while you are trying to convince me that LGBT Americans shouldn't be campaigning for a seat on the Supreme Court immediately.

Which is why there is no excuse for not putting a second woman, whatever her orientation is, on the Supreme Court.

But we simply don't know how many well qualified gay people there already are on the Federal bench, because you can't look at gay people and identify them. I assume that there are some, and if there are, that Obama will consider them on the same basis as anyone else.

in the last 50 years...ready, begin! Now list for me which of them have been Federal Judges, ready, go!
I can not think of a Gov getting even nominated. And yet you keep asking for a gay Gov. As if Govs often got SCOTUS nominations. Name them.

There is overlap between these two groups...

:patriot:

person is willing to be publicly identified.

I assume for the purposes of this conversation that an out gay person would be the type of person under discussion. DU seems unique in trying to say that a person in the closet "counts" as diversity in employment. It's a mystery to me.

was never known to have been gay mean that he wasn't a good Supreme Court Justice? That he didn't contribute in his own way to a diverse point of view on the Court?

An out gay person will have experiences that a person in the closet will not have. I assume that an out gay person would have a better perspective when dealing with the cases that are sure to come to the Federal Bench in the next few decades dealing with gay legal issues. I think this experience would be more helpful. Plus, they would be good role models for gay kids who might like to have political heros to look up to.

great.

But I still haven't seen any real suggestions, except for a handful of state judges.

than some of the mouth breathers we have on there already. But perhaps the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges would have some worthy suggestions--

http://home.att.net/~ialgj/

Justice Brennan was on the New Jersey Supreme Court when he was appointed by Eisenhower.

Justice O'Connor was also a state judge in Arizona when she was appointed.

federal judiciary?

Now there are many, and it would be hard to argue that a top state judge would be more qualified than a top Federal judge.

I'm not sure why the goalposts keep getting moved here...

and in order to make the assumption true so straight people can pretend they aren't discriminating, the supposed qualifications are twisted to ensure that there will be no "qualified" gay candidate. This requirement that Supreme Court appointees have to come from the federal bench is a recent development. There are numerous examples of Supreme Court judges who had no judicial experience at all. It is merely an attempt to restrict the number of candidates by making the qualifications arbitrary and exclusionary.

all of the meaningless alleged closet cases out there! :rofl:

Because a gay is a gay is a gay, no matter whether they are J. Edgar Hoover or a highly qualified openly gay woman, hey, they're all just gays! :eyes:

>>Stanford Law School professor Kathleen Sullivan, widely considered one of America’s top constitutional scholars, is being mentioned as a possible replacement for Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who has announced he will retire at the end of the court’s current term.

Sullivan’s name appears on lists compiled by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and numerous law blogs. She is the founder and director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, and served as dean of Stanford Law School from 1999 to 2004.<<


http://www.gaypolitics.com/2009/05/01/out-lesbian-a-con... /

Has anyone asked her? :sarcasm:

:patriot:

or have their spouses present at their swearing in, or pose for family photo-ops, nor to mention their kids.

Gosh, most are even afraid to discuss their opinions on marriage. :sarcasm:

I don't know what the dominant culture want now, they're so demanding, after all there are plenty of closeted str8's to represent them. :sarcasm:

Matthew Shepherds mother had to sit there and listen to lies about her dead boy from that beast fuxx and 17 dems voted with fuxx.

THAT'S why we need openly gay activists to fight for justice.

Oh, and bigotry like sh8t flows downhill, to "the everyman." To the least powerful person and the most vulnerable in society.

Weren't four teens recently acquitted of the murder of a young hispanic man, by a local jury? Another example of why we need hate crime legislation. :grr:

so apparently state courts aren't dreadful places to look.

The people that he would consider have personal lives that are common knowledge. Of course, if he were to nominate an openly gay person, that nominee would have to somehow get past the anti-gay Democrats in the Senate or they'll never come up for a vote. Think what kind of street cred Landrieu, Lincoln, or Nelson could get by being able to say that they turned the gay people away at the door. Think about the street cred that Obama can get when he reaches out to the social conservatives when he points out next time that not only did he stifle gay voices in the halls of power, he'd much rather hang out with homophobic religious conservatives than icky homos.

appointee who are openly gay? I can't, off the top of my head, but I'd love to hear your suggestions.

you're not asking.

What are their names, so we can consider and possibly promote them?

and neither do you apparently --

the point is that out an gay person won't have to be asked -- it'll be there front and center on what ever vetting gets done.

it won't be a secret file or even anything remotely like that.

among the ranks of those who would be vetted. I'm assuming that there will be gay people considered at that level, but not necessarily gay people who want to be publicly outed.

What if the person says, look, by the way, I happen to be gay. My friends know , my clerks know. But I'd rather not make a big deal about it -- my 80 year old mother doesn't know.

Should that person be eliminated from consideration?

"Oh you mean the two women who live in that house? The lesbeans." :rofl:

want to be publicly outed, or that Obama should make a public outing a condition of employment.

I know my cousin thinks that because she asked me once if I knew a lesbian from Colorado she met at a party.

aren't even being considered?

There isn't an unlimited number of qualified candidates, and we have lists of women and minorities and straight white men. But nobody wants to talk about the qualified openly gay people.

And, as disappointed as I am to say this, President Obama has a weak record of considering LGBT Americans in anything.

Have you asked them?

that they are all in opposite marriages or have had heterosexual intercourse to produce offspring at least once within those unions, I'm thinking you'll still suggest that at least one of them is a closeted gay person.

Why should I bother?

By mentioning the so caled "vast sea of closeted gays out there," "sarcasm: some want to reduce the politics of gay rights to a nose count.

17 dems opposed Matt Shepherd's hate crime legislation, we need strong gay voices in policy position and strong gay allies.

That's why you are correct, this is misdirection about how many closeted this or that...it does not matter if they are not voting for pro-gay rights policies.


Yet, this was the response by some when it was noted in another thread that an openly gay woman has been mentioned for SCOTUS on several lists as a good prospect and well qualified.

You nailed it and get it and so do others. Even if they play stupid.

During the confirmation for Alito and Roberts, their wives sat in the front row.

In America being a "good family man" or being a "married woman" is code for, they're not gay, they are like "us" and not one of "them."

You can't tell who is gay by looking at them or listening to them, in most cases. If the person hasn't made a point of being out publicly, how would you know? And if there are a number of such candidates, I'd seriously like to know who they are.

It is secret. Gays only, you know

Apparently, a huge number of married people over 50 are gay now.

This is nothing new. Until the last thirty years or so, most gay people were married and in the closet. Why? Because being gay could put you in jail, get you diagnosed as a mental case or, at the least, cost you your career. In many parts of the country, there is still concern that being openly gay could have repercussions on a career, child custody, or other matters.

Unfortunately, there are probably many more Gov. McGreeveys than there are Barney Franks.

But Herbert has been out of office longer than J. Edgar, and thus far, no stories have surfaced about Herbert pirouetting around in black lace dresses.

So I just have a hunch based on public information, is all. i.e. Herbert "probably" wasn't gay, okay?

"How will your spouse adjust to the new job, if you get it. You know, the long hours?"

"How will your kids adjust to relocating?"

"Oh, a 53 year old woman, no kids, no husband. I see."

"Hmmm..."

Who doesn't volunteer that she is gay.

Do you just assume that she is if you're Obama?

Then do you out her publicly?

What exactly is he supposed to do?

That should be encouraged.

When gay people do come out, then, if there is conservative backlash, as progressives we should support them, rather than telling them not to bring it up in the first place.

I have been talking about the fact that no one should be told that their family life should be kept secret when they are gay.

No one is interested in Obama or anyone else appointing a closeted gay person to public office. A closeted gay person is the same as a straight person, as far as voting/policy goes. That's the whole POINT of being in the closet.

There are millions of openly gay people in this country. Obama needn't ASK any of them about their sexuality, they will happily VOLUNTEER that information. And if they don't, the press surely would.

Gay people will not have their interests served by self-loathing closet cases, and to suggest we should be satisfied with the ASSUMPTION that we are already "represented" by such people is moronic at best.

a gay person who is not 100% out-to-the-media, would vote the same as a straight person.

As I said to another poster, gay people who are still partially or completely in the closet are painfully aware of the issues of straight privilege. This is exactly what keeps most of them trapped there.

Men and women ages fifty and above -- the age group most likely to be appointed to the SCOTUS -- grew up in a culture where they could be arrested simply for being gay, where the "enlightened" view was that they were not criminals but mentally ill. Most of them married, and acknowledging their sexuality could have led to the loss of their children. And many of them still live in parts of the country that feel almost like the 1950's in terms of gay/straight relations. I wish that younger people today could be a little more compassionate toward their older peers, and less smug about "closet cases" among the older generation.

They definitely continue to come up with new ways to say sit down and shut up.

HE'S ONLY GOING TO SING ONE SONG!!1!!

IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE A TWO MINUTE PRAYER!11!!

and others!

Why do you keep demanding so much? He's only been president for 100 days. You guys make it so hard to support your pet cause when you act this way. Do you think Bush would even consider appointing an LGBT anything? Poutrage!

let's pretend like John Roberts or Souter are gay, because that is a meaningless distraction as neither are known as gay role models nor as political activists.

But, of course to prove the OP's point, the minute a qualified gay woman is mentioned we spend half a day in a circle jerk discussing all of the "closet gays" as if their coming out was the issue, instead of actually discussing or supporting a woman on many lists today!

Yes, it's a new STFU- you gays already have many, many, many people in high places, only no one really knows about them - so sit down and STFU. :rofl:

http://www.gaypolitics.com/2009/05/01/out-lesbian-a-contender-for-supreme-court-nomination/

>>



May 1, 2009

Out lesbian a contender for Supreme Court nomination
Stanford Law School professor Kathleen Sullivan, widely considered one of America’s top constitutional scholars, is being mentioned as a possible replacement for Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who has announced he will retire at the end of the court’s current term.

Sullivan’s name appears on lists compiled by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and numerous law blogs. She is the founder and director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, and served as dean of Stanford Law School from 1999 to 2004.

Sullivan has filed amicus curiae briefs in some of the most important Supreme Court cases involving LGBT rights, including Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.<<

it's homophobic to keep discussing 'closeted gays' as if those who are out aren't qualified.

that we need qualified, openly gay people in public service.

Who will speak up for hate crime legislation?

Speak up against DADT, DOMA, fair employment laws?

Edited to remove all the rest of the stuff I said. :)

sarcastic. :crazy: you must not have caught her name change when everybody changed their names.

She did a pretty good job imitating some pretty typical posts around here.

My entire post was sarcasm--a collection of the typical responses we get from nitwits whenever we dare to ask for the things everyone else takes for granted--like human rights, for example. Perhaps I should have added a :sarcasm: but I presumed it wasn't necessary. My bad. I apologize.

definitely misunderstood that one! :blush:

I'm afraid, without recognizing your name, and having seen plenty of posts exactly like yours that were NOT meant with sarcasm, that I did indeed need that irritating sarcasm tag.

Good job on the imitation. :thumbsup: :D

:hi:

I have had some jobs where I was "out" and some jobs where I wasn't "out."

The jobs where I was able to be "out" and worked with people who didn't have a problem with it, the typical difficulties of the jobs were just that; the typical difficulties of the job. It was a level playing field.

The jobs where I was NOT able to be "out" and worked with homophobic types were atrocious. The problems I had with those jobs were compounded by constant questions about why I'm not married, attempts to set me up with this guy and that guy, pressure to just fling myself at any single guy in the workplace, and homophobic slurs from coworkers. It was constant and it was relentless. It caused me to have to leave those jobs.

Where I live, talking to a manager about homophobic slurs and the other associated sexual harassment was out of the question. There was no way I would get any help there. The overall mentality where I live is against gay people.

I honestly do not see how anyone can claim that we can "hide" our orientation and that should be the be all end all answer. It is not. It just causes more problems. It causes us to have to be dishonest and it causes us to have to constantly put up with constant, relentless harassment about our personal lives.

Between being "out" (which I translate to mean honest) and "passing," (which I translate to mean dishonest, shifty, devious, and causing more problems than it is worth) I'll take being out and honest about who I am any day. People know they'll get honesty from me that way and it makes for a better working environment.

Of course, people in other situations may have different results, but if I can pull off being "out" in rural North Carolina better than I can pull off "passing," that's saying something major.

It's better to be who we are than shroud who we are in secrecy and lies. "Passing" leaves the impression that we are somehow dishonest and untrustworthy.

I've learned a lot going from "passing" to being "out." I'd rather be who I am and face an honest battle based on what I know and what REALLY applies to me, than fake it and face a battle in unfamiliar territory that I have no clue how to deal with.

My experience has been that it opens more minds and opens more doors, in time, to be out of the closet. To lie about who we are, causes more myths and lies to be propagated about homosexuality, in general.

While it might seem practical to some people to "pass," it is not the best policy in the long term.

Let's put it this way:
If you are a person who is in a situation where you can pass and do it because you feel you have to, I truly feel for you in your situation.

If you are a person who believes "passing" is the best policy and has no trouble with the dishonesty involved, I'd NEVER want anything to do with you. You have ALREADY proven yourself untrustworthy and dishonest to me. Trust matters whether you think it does or not. Honesty matters whether you think it does or not.

That's that.

That's why it pisses me off so much when I hear that "you can just hide what you are" (to keep from enduring bigotry/so you have nothing to whine about) bullshit. :grr:

"If you are a person who is in a situation where you can pass and do it because you feel you have to, I truly feel for you in your situation."

It was a really bad situation. I tried two different school districts. I had students make homophobic remarks to my face thinking I was straight. I had students come to me in tears because they were afraid that if they came out that I'd not like them as much--and high school students in low SES communities are desperately looking for acceptance. I had pornographic anti-gay graffiti scrawled on the walls of one of my classrooms because the fact that I was single and had no girlfriend was simply not acceptable. I had two different administrations back up the homophobic students that did the harrassing and graffiti. I had one of the two teacher's unions back up the students.

It's time to deal with some grown-ups again.

and the fact that it's not something that comes up in an interview with a single person. (It might if a married person mentions a spouse.)

An interviewer can tell my gender by looking at me, but can't tell whether I'm straight or gay. And it isn't legal to ask. Suppose Obama did want to know which of the federal judges were gay. How would he do that? Just because a person hasn't chosen to go to the media about it, or join a LGBT org, doesn't mean the person isn't gay.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.