So is it wrong to casually ask someone if they are married?

Because, especially in business-related situations, I am asked this all the time.

If you don't see anything wrong with that question being asked, then you cannot find anything wrong with asking someone if they're gay.

That is, unless you believe that being gay is something that needs to be kept hidden. And in that case, you support a double standard that is designed to keep gay people invisible and second class.

The fact is, to people who comprehend what this debate is really all about, when you ask someone if they are gay or straight, all you are asking is if they are coupled with someone of the same gender or the opposite one.

You are asking about the structure of their adult family.

Nothing about sex. But everything about family.

Not a very intrusive question, considering we are a society that very publicly celebrates family, weddings, marriage and children.

That's all. It's all about various forms of families being treated equally and with deference and respect.

If your response to someone casually asking if you're married is, Why do you ask?" then you have what will be considered by most to be an arch, hostile attitude. People will be less moved to trust you.

And that is limiting.

I am a crank and privacy freak who strikes people wrong all the time. I get that. It is a valid option.

But that's no reason everyone should have to be that way.

not trust me..and leave me the hell alone.

:fistbump:

:thumbsup: :hi:

with a new acquaintance it could be considered a natural, non nosy looking question. But put the same people in a board room and the circumstances are altered. There is no one right way but occasions often dictate...

I do art intensive types of tours with a travel buddy of mine since my husband is not as crazy about art as I am...she is a widow, we both wear wedding rings. People we meet are sometimes VERY interested in our marital status (possibly because they think we are gay, I guess). Sometimes it can be difficult since she was widowed tragically in her 40s and is pretty young looking. But if we're at dinner with a group of others on the intensive and the wine starts to flow (funny how that happens in Italy and Spain), then folks feel more relaxed. It's all about context, really.

I ask to see if you're available before I start hitting on you. ;)

:rofl:

(Prism said that formulation came from you.)

I coined it, but he explored and expanded upon it most eloquently.

Isn't being married something different from being Gay or Straight?

If I ask someone if they are married, them saying yes or no doesn't tell
me if they are Gay or Straight.

and we will reach that point even sooner when people are comfortable discussing different forms families take in our public discourse.

but if we are always asking, aren't we making sure that a difference is noted?

If a kid goes to school and is asked....do you have two mommies or two daddies or a mommy and a daddy or just a mommy or just a daddy, why would the answer matter? and if it doesn't, then why
would the question matter?

and that their families are honored and respected and valued equally.

show itself, which is what I would find a natural progression.
I'm not sure why asking would be required, especially since
it's not supposed to make a difference, one way or the other.

If you are married, you get sex whenever you want, right?

It takes two...unless you are counting masturbation....
none of which has to do with being married or not married, IMO.

Then why get married, if you can't have sex, whenever?

Those three things are not the same.

So 'it does not matter' is a thing straight people say when it serves them to pretend that their own community does not in fact make laws that mean it matters very much to GLBT people. In most states, gay people can be fired, evicted, denied, openly and with stated reason.
I have heard members of various majorities claim that prejudice against various minorities is a thing of the past. But the minorities most usually do not agree with them. Sound familiar?

I have GLBT friends that live in states that don't allow gay marriage (including the state I'm in, but not all my friends live in Texas), but have been to other states and gotten married (CA when it was allowed and Iowa).

edited to add: Or before CA allowed marriage, if they were in a committed relationship, said they were married.

Think we have enough examples from, especially, the right wing - that even in those states marriage is not excluding a person from being gay.

Folks feel comfortable with the status quo.

Married/Unmarried suggests that being Married is the natural state towards which all move. It defines Married as the norm in the same say White or Heterosexual or Middle Class or Male is traditionally defined as the norm.

But this isn't a perfect world and we all know damn good and well why certain inquiring minds dwell enough on the question and why they want to ask it. Its not because of innocent, curious small talk.

I'd figure if they wanted me to know, they'd tell me.

I don't remember a single instant where someone asked me if I was straight,
and I don't recall asking anyone if they were straight either.

It was funny as heck. My mom asked me a coupla times. No big deal.

An honorable man might ask someone he's attracted to that question with completely honorable intentions.

It is not honorable to ask for a date from people in a business related situation.

Ever.

They are intending to hurt Kagen with their question. When you are asked if you are married, it is not done with malicious intent. If they were asking you to try and hurt you, that would be different.

It's an issue that I don't understand that well. Prism is exactly right that it sexuality does shape lives and being a member of a persecuted minority certainly shapes views. Both you and Prism are exactly right in that amazingly it only becomes private if you are gay. Otherwise, everyone is happy to show off partners.

For me again, it's the intent. It's just like with Sotomayor. If someone were to ask her about her education, I have no problem with that. They did. But when they started needling her about how she learned English, I bristled. They weren't asking something that shouldn't be asked, but they were intending to slander her. It was the intent rather than the question.

It is a clear mistake to nominate someone for a post requiring Senate confirmation who has a big secret.

It is irresponsible to do so. It is also at odds with the ideals of democratic society. Our leaders are not supposed to have huge secrets.

So the question becomes, does Kagan have a huge secret?

If she does then Obama was an idiot to nominate her.

So why are we pretending her orientation is properly considered a huge secret? Her nomination was predicated on it not being a big secret.

Either her nomination was rank incompetence or else her orientation is not a huge secret. I cannot see it both ways.

He's an incompetent who should ask folks if they are gay or straight before deciding
that they qualify for a position. What was he thinking? He's terrible. :thumbsdown:

rampant in this society. The state of being married or unmarried does not bring the sort of negative prejudices upon a person that sadly plague the homosexuals in our society. If only the answer were met with the same acceptance and respect given to other characteristics of individuals.

If all of us could pass for white males, I'm sure that there would be a whole lot more of them in this country too. That's what happens when someone will be put down for who they are, but not if they don't let anyone know who they are.

I hope that someday that question will not be a loaded one.

how will we ever get there?

some arenas in public life where it's impossible to make inroads without keeping certain things to yourself. While I wish it weren't so, I don't think it's worth going through that sort of circus and jeopardizing becoming a sacrificial lamb for the cause. there are still plenty of bible-thumping RW grandstanders in Congress who will insist that orientation is a huge issue. Politics is still rife with bigoted groups who freak out at the idea of anyone they see as part of the "Gay Agenda" getting any position in govt, period.

I suppose it would be amusing to watch the Phelps clan picket the hearings though. Hopefully trying to get themselves on teevee with their favorite Repub congresscritters. I'd get a chuckle out of that. Let them try to get the stink of Fred and his kin's hate off of themselves. They deserve to reap the crazy that they promote.

if they tried to burn her at the stake, I think the media and much of the nation would rise to her defense. And what an enormous sea change it could potentially create in our culture.

I don't expect any of this will happen, because of the fear on the right that it actually might come back to bite them (and can you imagine a Republican senator asking her if she is gay, with Lindsay Graham sitting there? :) )

More than likely, the hearings will be pro forma, rather dull and she will be easily confirmed.

But if it were to be discussed, it could be one of those seminally important "teachable moments" we get only very infrequently in this country.

I don't have a whole lot of confidence in our media doing the job. I imagine what's more likely "he says this is okay, but this guy over here says it's awful. It must be something in between."

That's what all of this comes down to. When you strike at the heart of it, people seem to believe that wondering or asking if someone is gay is a Very Bad and Rude Thing, as if it's a name-call, a smear, an "innuendo" of unspeakable evil and shame.

It is not. The people who think otherwise are still wrestling with some old homophobic demons.

It reminds me of people who love, love, love gay people, but when their own child comes out, they break down in tears.

"Well, that depends. . . "

It gets them every time.

Asking someone if they're married in a witch hunt to determine whether they're homosexual or heterosexual is an invasion of privacy.

This discussion appears to be centered on whether or not Kagan's sexuality should be public knowledge. That is her choice.

Asking someone if he or she is married will likely elicit one of two responses: yes or no.

What then: asking the sex of the person's spouse?

Where does it end: asking about boyfriends or girlfriends?

Are people who think it's a somehow dirty thing that is still associated in their minds with shame.

It isn't even a slippery slope, as it's one question with one answer.

That's just a strawman to justify invading a person's privacy.

And who do we string up for the hundreds of articles spent exploring it?

Good times.

What the hell does being President have to do with fishing around to learn a person's sexuality?

Public figures surrender some amount of privacy to become such. Our country has worked like that for, well, forever. Now the state of Ellen's marriage may very well be private, but the simple fact that she is indeed married is not.

I understand what you're saying and the context - but until this country wakes up and makes gay marriage legal, overturns DADT and generally accepts gays as equals, your question can only be answered for specific cases (i.e. Kagan) or rhetorically.

is the invisibility factor and how straight people and the media perpetuate it (even liberals who think they're doing gay people a favor by "protecting" them.)

In other words, there's a chicken and egg conundrum happening here.

If she is indeed a lesbian, her being boldly out and not hiding it would/could advance GLBT issues tremendously. We'll just have to see how this plays out - I'm still not 100% sure she is a lesbian, but she could be a very positive influence if she was and she decided not to hide it.

exactly.

A year and a half ago we were celebrating the election of the nation's first African American President.

Now, not one of us here believes that he was more or less qualified because of his ethnicity, yet none of us would say that his ethnicity was unimportant. Would 11/4/08 have been such an historic day if Barack Obama were white? Of course not.

Would any of us say, "Barack Obama's ethnicity is his business" or "it doesn't matter what his ethnicity is." Nope.

And the very reason why it was such an historic day was because it was a proud moment for millions of African Americans (and those of us who's loved ones are African American.) A day many of us thought we'd never see. Nothing wrong with that of course.

And I have a DU archive at the ready where I can go back and FIND a WHOLE BUNCH of DU'ers who were happy .... rightfully so ..... that Barack Obama had been elected and only PART of that joy had to do with his intellect and administrative potential. Ya get me?

Yet the possibility that a hypothetical Supreme Court nominee could be gay is supposed to be a non-issue? If said hypothetical nominee were to be seated it would be a proud moment for millions of gays and lesbians, a day very much like that November night in 2008. A day that many thought they'd never see.

While I can understand that Ms. Kagan's life is her own life to live ... I also have a hard time discounting what could be such an important moment to millions (again, speaking about some hypothetical nominee) as "a private matter" or "of no importance."

I understand your point Rugg. It's spot on.

20 years ago, I saw a program by a educator named Jane Elliot. I cant go into all of her philosophy here, but one of the things she schooled me to was how offensive it was to say, "so and so, when I see you, I dont see a color." What's WRONG with seeing a color? Nothing. When I look at my family members, I see beautiful, strong black men and women. Proud of who they are and proud of their heritage and proud of the life experiences they bring to the table.

I think that's the point you're trying to make? ;)

Should it be a requirement that one has to reveal his/her sexuality in order to be nominated or elected to serve in public office?

.... is for mamas and daddy's to raise their children to respect everyone and treat them fairly regardless of who they date or are married to in the same way that we (like to pretend that) respect everyone regardless of the color of their skin.

That, I believe, is Rugg's point.

wrong with this:

".... is for mamas and daddy's to raise their children to respect everyone and treat them fairly regardless of who they date or are married to in the same way that we (like to pretend that) respect everyone regardless of the color of their skin."

The issue is asking someone if they're gay (or straight). I'm sure that happens a lot in casual conversations. Is it appropriate in a formal application/interview?

Currently, questions about race are optional on applications. Religion doesn't appear, and neither does political affiliation. My point is that it is an invasion of privacy to delve into a person's sexuality. I just don't think it's appropriate.

would naturally be the next question that had to be answered. whats the point of being married when 50% of the time couples will divorce and 20something percent are not faithful. the question would be meaningless really.

so do we have to ask that question as well? and ask, if you are married are you married to a man or a woman?

I don't think so. I understand where Rug is coming from but its a long road to that point still. We are still too collectively stupid and weak and ignorant.

And (usually) your race does not have to be told to others. It is a privacy thing to me. We do have a right to privacy in this country. The intrusiveness of running for President for instance, really stops people who are not straight and married from running. And even then, we pick their spouses apart. I think there is some reasonableness in wanting to know but it seems to go too far in the other direction now.

.... *cough, cough* John *cough, cough* Edwards.

But that's beside the point. ;)

"type" of person that gets elected. Why do we want sham marriages to uphold? Family values gone overboard? I am married and have two kids and it is not some ideal that is better then gay or single people. Plus, my husband snores. Loud.
I really think we just need to let people just be who they want to be and do what they want to do. But I know that is too much to ask for, even in 2010.

... worthy of all of the mistreatment second class citizens deserve. (Like being forcibly rolled over in the middle of the night and smacked when necessary) :)

I do that all the time.

Thank you. You expressed it far more eloquently than I could.

... it literally changed my life.

She talked more about racism and how it's so deeply ingrained into our society that we dont even realize it. The same thing can be said for homophobia and she alluded to that but, heck, it was 1980 something and you couldn't talk about that as openly as you can now.

But she talked about some of the language we use, MEANING well, actually has an adverse affect. For example, we strive to be "tolerant" ... but "tolerate" means "to put up with." "And I dont know about you guys, but *I* dont want to be 'put up with.' I want to be LOVED and APPRECIATED!" ... or about how we talk about this being a melting pot country. In a melting pot, all of the flavors run together so that you cant taste much of anything. Instead, she proposed a salad. A funny metaphor but true. In a salad, the carrots taste like carrots and the onions taste like onions but they all get together and make a delicious meal. They all bring something special to the dish.

It's hard for me to describe it all here. But she changed my whole world view. Especially with regard to the notion of color blindness. That was always a well-intentioned idea developed at a time when folks were really needing their ethnicity to be ignored in order to get a fair shake. But we're to the point now that to ignore someone's ethnicity, to pretend it's not there ... or someone's sexual preference ... does them a disservice. It was a nice idea, but not doable in our society and any claim to the contrary was disingenuous.

It's kind of a cynical view I guess ... that color blindness is unachievable ... but I will say that I have backed off of that just a bit in recent years. Thanks to the teachings and practices of a certain man from Illinois (via Hawaii and Indonesia.) A virtual walking salad bowl himself. ;)

But you know .... I have that program on tape. .... I think you have just given me the excuse to finally put it on Youtube. ;)

is a great thing in itself. I'm sure there have been gay SCOTUS justices in the past and it must have been difficult for them. I would hope that difficulty is lessened by today's standards and understanding. At least it is for some of us who are progressives.

and to keep their stuff to themselves if they prefer. That includes their sexual (or emotional as Sullivan now says) orientation. Society needs to relax and appreciate diversity.

Being married or not isn't an orientation issue (or shouldn't be).

I'm not saying asking either is particularly and necessarily offensive but I don't understand why it would be seen as the same.

being asked if you are married is de facto asking if you are straight, since gay people cannot get married in 44 states. For many people, it's an assumption - they assume I'm straight, so they want to know if I'm married or single. What doesn't occur to them is if I answer them honestly and fully, I am then telling them my orientation.

unmarried doesn't change my orientation.

I don't see it as a stretch at all to ask if someone if they are married without assigning orientation. Orientation is a separate question than being in permanent relationship or not and I think you know that but are bothered that it is assumed that you or anyone else are straight as it kinda naturally makes the perception that non-straight orientation is 2nd or 3rd rate or to outright be hidden.

If you are wanting to argue that orientation should be asked with the same ready easy as relationship status that's one thing but conflating status with orientation is another.

I worked with a woman and she said she was married and sure I ASSumed that her spouse was a husband but when she started bitching about her wife that cleared up the orientation but nothing changed in my mind as she was still in the same committed relationship and unavailable to me.

Marriage=lifetime pairing

Orientation=who pairings regardless of length and depth are with

Your assertion does to single straight people what is done to gay folks or at least that is how I perceive it. Single or unmarried doesn't make one a closet case it makes them unlucky, independent, free range, non-committal, searching, frustrated, recovering, or getting their head clear among other very real and valid things.


I'm fine with orientation being comfortably discussed and out in the open that seems healthy and affirming, but I see nothing good about instituting "single" as code for "gay".

...now that I understand that, a few questions come to mind. What does being married or having children have to do with someone's sexual orientation? That sounds wrongly judgmental to me.

But, the real point of your post has to do with whether it will come up in the confirmation hearings and, if so, what about it?

My feelings are, and politics is not my forte, that if a half-black guy can get elected president, then an unmarried woman with no children can be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Also, I think the nation is ready for a lesbian Supreme Court justice, if that's the case.

True homophobes are a sorry minority in our country, and the rest of us don't respect their opinions.

I don't think it matters to most reasonable people.

I've got issues with Kagen, but her sexuality is not one of them.

It doesn't matter how the associations come about. Clarence Thomas is currently on the hot seat because of his wife's political dabblings. Geraldine Ferraro has had to field questions about the activities of both her husband and her son. Countless appointees have had to explain their child care hiring practices. Hillary Clinton had all kinds of things she had to deal with in regards to her husband when she accepted her current job.

So it's really broader than just being gay or straight or single or committed. And it shouldn't focus on just that one aspect.

You are *NOT* allowed to ask people a marriage question, *especially* in the hiring process.

Even the slightest whiff of discriminating for, or against, married people is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

FWIW, asking if somebody is gay, or straight, is treated the same way in Oregon. It's not a valid business question, and bringing up the topic can get you fired, sued, etc.

"The fact is, to people who comprehend what this debate is really all about, when you ask someone if they are gay or straight, all you are asking is if they are coupled with someone of the same gender or the opposite one."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You are not asking about their couplehood status, you are asking about their sexual preference. They could be coupled with somebody of a similar gender, and prefer that gender, or coupled with somebody of a very different gender, but prefer a gender closer to theirs, or they could prefer to avoid couplehood entirely.

Asking about somebody's sexual, or domestic coupling, behaviors, is absurd and has no place in the business world.

Two words from my post, in quotes... do you have a point?

Do you often refer to the "Democrat Party"?

Lots of people have preferences, some have to explore to find theirs, others never do (because they don't feel a need to, or are too repressed/controlled to consider alternative possibilities).

Are you denying the right of folks to have their own preferences?

Are you advocating that sexual partnerships should be, oh, determined by the state, and people *shouldn't* be allowed to exercise their preferences?

Referring to someone's sexual orientation as a mere "preference" is widely perceived as trivializing and thus offensive. It sets off alarm bells, kinda like "Democrat Party." A serious point can easily get lost in that way.

I prefer to not be murdered, but I don't think that making such a statement trivializes murder.

Sexual preference/sexual orientation/sexual attraction are all somewhat interchangeable in my mind, but "sexual orientation" doesn't seem to encompass the GLBTQ spectrum adequately, where orientation (like gender) can be a very fluid thing. I, for example, prefer highly clever partners. I simply cannot enjoy sex with dumb people, no matter how visibly attractive they may have been to me. Their "plumbing" is a secondary factor. Other folks seem highly wired to specific sets of plumbing, regardless of other factors. There are lots of things that build up preferences, so much so that we have entire vocabularies built around it.

I do think I see your concern, though, now that you've laid it out: It's about an argument that folks like McClurkin make, where they assume others can simply "change a preference", rather than recognize that some preferences simply *cannot* be changed, or can only be changed under extreme duress... I'm in the camp (heh) that there's no such thing as changing a person that way, McClurkin is just in denial about part of his sexuality.

edit: grammar

Bigots like to refer to "preference" because it's a way of saying that we are just being contrary and all, acting out of mere spite. We could stop being gay just like they stopped putting ketchup on their scrambled eggs, you know.

It's silly, but it's out there, and we even find a good bit of that attitude around here, where I have heard many things that would make your hair curl.

(For example, one prominent DUer, recently tombstoned, once said that LGBT people think we deserve special privileges because, and I quote, we "stick things up our asses." Nothing happened to him for saying that--it took him making honest to God death threats against another person here to finally get him booted.)

Okay, that's deviant. And wrong.

I've seen a woman ritually lose all (and I mean all) her hair in a public sex-magic ritual, but that's nowhere near as messed up as people putting ketchup on scrambled eggs.

(Or I could be bumping the thread. Or both could be true.)

Yes, if you don't know the person well. To go right up to someone and ask if that person is married if you are a stranger is too intrusive. In fact, it's no one's business unless the person being asked volunteers the information.

However, if you and the inquirer know each other well, there's nothing wrong with asking. If the two of you are friends, it would be an important piece of information to know in case of social gatherings, formal or informal.

But, I think this is a question that has to do with cultural concerns as well.

Not everyone treats a stranger on an intimate level and would see this question as an invasion of privacy. And then, there are people who are like an open book who blab about their life all the time--even in a society which is rather panoptical, if you think about it.

That's how I see asking someone about sexual orientation too. I would always wait for someone to volunteer that information because that's someone's personal business. If they want to volunteer such a thing, it is up to them.

my marriage state?

Usually when a person is married,and or has children its one of the first things that they state about themselves.So if you must ask,then they may feel that it is none of your business. No matter what type of office or business setting it is. Some things that are about peoples lives are none of any one's business. Now if you are referring to the Supreme Court Justice nominee,then it is still no one's business. She hasn't stated anything out of her mouth that I can tell or read that leads us to believe she is gay. But what if she was? Your sexuality has nothing to do with work performance. Unless you plan on having some afternoon delight with your co-workers.We need to spend more time worrying about whether a person is qualified for their position than who they choose to bed.And yes one day we may be able to look at all marriages the same,just hasn't happened yet. And for those who compare it to the color of your skin,bad choice. When you look at someone you can't deny your ethnicity,but you can deny sexuality. All I am saying is when you start looking into a person's sexual behaviors or personal choice in relationships you have overstepped your curiosity bounds. Most people straight or gay are proud of their family.You don't have to question them about it they feel free to tell you.Peace.

What is to be gained by acquiring such information. Matter of fact why even ask about being married. As a business owner I couldn't care less about such information. I only care about what you can bring to my company; personally i would rather hire a recluse nerd, no talk all work, than the gossip girl. I have a business to run not a 9 to 5 "it's just a job, pay me for the slightest headache" family guy. Have one damn good portfolio and passion. The rest is irrelevant.

For an interviewer to ask such a question seems like social chit-chat and if the mood/setting is right than go ahead but i would stand clear.

My 2 cents

being 'married' doesn't get the shit beat out of you or scorn or all the other crap people treat gays with.

it is nothng CLOSE to being asked if you are married.

If, for example, you are arranging a dinner of some kind, sending the invitation to "Ms. X and guest" is the typical route.

There are people with whom I have had longstanding business relationships, and I have no idea whether they are married. I figure if they feel like mentioning it, that's their prerogative.

Some adults don't have partners, spouses, or kids, but are quite happy and well-adjusted. They love their mothers and are nice to their friends' children. They have dogs or cats. If they don't choose to talk about their family arrangements, what's it to you? Why didn't you carry on this way about Justice Souter?

I think you really, really want to know if Elena Kagen sleeps with women. Otherwise you would let this drop.

Hekate

Or, so says her friends from college and Eliot Spitzer. She simply hasn't found Mr. Right.

www.nydailynews.com/.../2010-05-12_elena_kagan_is_not_gay_supreme_court_nominee_just_hasnt_found_mr_right_friends.html

------------------------------------------------

I would not ask a person in a business related situation whether or not they were married. I have been in many business situations where the person made a comment on a spouse, but even so, it was definitely not because I pursued the question. Often, its just a passing comment. I ask about children, ONLY, if I'm asked first about mine.

The only time its come close to being relevant was during an interview with a potential faculty member and even that was simply a question of whether or not their spouse was aware that they were really considering moving to Mississippi and the culture shock it can sometimes provide.

I would not have a problem answering the question if asked. Then again, I always wear a wearing ring. I'm never asked. Although you can't really tell by looking at a hand, I still often assume no wedding ring on a female's hand means she's not married and a ring assumes she is...with guys, assuming tends to be a bit more problematic.

But, I've also met women who were married and didn't wear a wedding band (lost it, rushed out of the house without it, or basically just didn't give a flip, etc).

I try to stick to business related topics and leave all the other topics alone. I remember being in Memphis a few months ago and ended up at being seated at a luncheon with a man who insisted on calling the civil war the war of northern aggression, and complained about how liberal the current Supreme Court was. He even wore a little crest on his coat to signify that his "great grandpappy" or somebody in his family fought in this "war of northern aggression".

I really wanted to ask him whether he was able to find someone nutty enough to marry him. But, mostly I spent time just praying the luncheon would end. I was convinced that any minute he would jump up and start singing Dixie or shouting, "the south will rise again"!
------------------------------------------------

and moral courage to have admitted it by now.

I've always said that if I were gay, I would hope I'd have the strength to come out and live with the consequences. Of course, that's SO much easier to say than do.

:headbang:
rocktivity

In other business situations, I don't know why you'd need to know why--especially since it's possible to be gay OR straight WITHOUT being married. Even in a casual situation, I wouldn't ask either question unless it were directly relevant to what was being discussed.

:headbang:
rocktivity

Otherwise, it's no one's business.

The whole "Is she or isn't she" about Kagan bothers me on two levels

One, it really isn't anyone's business if she is gay or not. I don't think it affects her abilities to do the job or make decisions about cases.

The other is the incredibly annoying assumption that if a woman is unmarried at her age, there must be something "wrong" with her. She couldn't find or keep a man! So she must be gay. Good grief.