Why do some believe that Kagan is gay? Because she isn't married?

How many in their 40's and older have never married and have never had same sex?

It's all a Rovian whisper-smear campaign. And the only thing they've got is that she cuts her hair short and is unmarried. That's it. They've got nothing.

relevant whether I'm straight, gay, or an "old maid". It's not a valid criteria for Kagan's confirmation as well.

On the other hand, if you want to discuss her position as far as Don Siegelman getting his petition heard by The Supreme Court for a new trial, that's something else.

Really, all you're doing is muddying the waters.

I'm sure tons of people think I'm a lesbian because I'm almost 50, never married, have no kids and don't date a lot. Oh, and my hair is short too. Heck, my own mother, before she died, asked my sibs if I was hiding it from her. *sigh* No, I wasn't.

There's not a whole lot I can do about it. I try to live by the philosophy "I'd rather have a bigot mistake me for a lesbian than have a lesbian mistake me for a bigot." But at the same time, it says something damn annoying about our society that lesbianism is the ONLY "out" (so to speak) that we allow women who reach their 40s or 50s without marrying or having children. If we don't do those two things, people assume that 1) we're lesbian; 2) something's wrong with us; or 3) something's "wrong" with us--namely, we're lesbian.

We really don't think of childless singlehood as an acceptable option for heterosexual women in our society. Yet we make it almost essential to a woman's having a serious dedication to a career. We don't expect men to go unmarried and childless in order to pursue a career; we expect that they will simply marry a woman who will take care of the kid stuff for them while they devote themselves to career pursuit. However, we don't expect that women will marry a man with a similar choice in mind. We don't expect her to look for a husband who will devote himself to child-rearing so she can devote herself to her career. (If she makes/ends up with such an arrangement, it's a rarity and everyone treats him as if he deserves some kind of prize for choosing to do what many women choose to do as a matter of course.) No, what we expect women to do is either a) work until they have kids, then either stay home or work part time, at least while their kids are young, then maybe go back to work--if they want to; or b) devote themselves to a career, understanding that if they do, they pretty much have to either delay or forgo motherhood. And then, we look at them as if they're weird, even if we can persuade ourselves that no, they didn't do this because they are lesbians.

Imagine a world in which every man who didn't choose to marry by his 40s or 50s AND then become the PRIMARY caregiver to the children he had (i.e., either stay home with them or work only part time, at least while they were young) was just assumed to be gay until proven otherwise. THEN you will really know what it's like to be a single, childless middle-aged female in American society.

It's not just the woman's age that's the problem people have with her; it's also that she didn't make parenthood, and parenting, one of the primary goals of her life.

Another heterosexual, almost-50, childfree female here. Oh, yeah. I have short hair, too. And, nothing "wrong" with me in any way, shape or form. I am really sick of that attitude. So, I'm picky. Sue me. Who wants to date bible-thumping wingnuts? I sure as hell don't, but that's all there are around here.

49, never married. But I have very long hair.

"Some say..."
"Some are saying..."

Sources. Ahem.

Perhaps. But being a straight white male can as well. In fact, everyone brings something of their background to the table when serving on the Supreme Court. Anyone who doesn't think that is lying to themselves. Is she gay? Maybe not, maybe yes. Should it be something the media obsess on like a gossip tabloid tv show? No. The right wing just want her to be "out" so they can throw some crap at her.

With the retirement of Stevens, there will be no Protestants on the SCOTUS.

The President says biography matters. The President says people's life experience matters.

Orientation is just as important as gender or ethnicity.

If we can discuss those two - and as Democrats, we generally do, at great length, and often see them as net positives to Court appointments - then orientation can be included in that.

This whole "We shouldn't bring orientation into this!" is disingenuous or bigoted or both. It's also offensive, because it asks us to pretend we don't discuss the ethnicity or gender of nominees and are thus justified in shunting the orientation issue into the closet - where it apparently still belongs for some people.

In 2010 America, orientation is no longer a closeted issue. It's in the open, part of who we are, and is open for free discussion just as much as gender or ethnicity.

No one person will ever come into any situation without some biases. Being gay, straight, bisexual or even asexual (yes, I do know people like that) can shape your views but so can being a straight person. And yet we don't ask people why they are straight.

I suppose the issue comes down to the fact that some people who are gay simply don't want to be out of the closet. Is it up to us to force them out? Does that really help gay rights in the long run? Kagan has said nothing about her orientation.

Obviously we have very little trouble forcing Republicans or religious conservatives out of the closet under the hypocrisy argument.

Do we have a right to know these things about all politicians or just hypocritical ones? What are the qualifiers? Supreme Court justices are expected to rule on LGBT rights cases in the near future. Does that make orientation relevant to some degree?

I would argue the more powerful the individual, the more we have the right to at least ask about these things. If a presidential candidate was closeted, would the entire media pretend they had no idea? Would they never look into it? Would they give deference? Would wondering or asking be considered out of bounds?

I doubt that very much.

Supreme Court justices are powerful people with the ability to shape our lives and rights for generations. I think the basics are at least fair inquiry in the media. The President, in introducing Kagan, discussed her gender, her life experiences, the things that influenced her. He himself said he heavily depends on an individual's biography when weighing who to nominate to the Court.

Orientation is a pretty big thing to leave out when we're being asked to pass judgment partially based on their life story.

But then, I find this whole "It's a secret!" approach to Supreme Court nominees to be one of our crazier Washington rituals. We're giving someone a life term to determine the very meaning of the Constitution. I don't think very much should be a secret. And, of course, none of it really is a secret to the people in Washington. I'm sure the President knows all about Kagan's life and views. I'm sure he knows the answers to all those questions and pieces of her life that we're to never speak of or learn about.

It's only a secret to the public.

Why that should be so, I have no idea.

It just seems like people want her to fit their agenda, for or against gay rights (which is a good agenda, to me). However, she doesn't seem like she wants to be part of it. I wouldn't call her the first gay supreme court justice if she won't partake in the so called "un-closeting" of herself.

Strangely, this reminds me of American Idol and all the speculation with Adam Lambert. He wasn't coming out fully on the show and some in the gay community were unhappy with him. Some right wingers thought he was, well, I won't go there. It was all becoming nonsense to me, when Adam was just a good singer. Now, the Supreme Court is not American Idol. Should this maybe or maybe not thing about her stop her from becoming a SC Justice? I wonder what many people would think.

n/t

You have a good point there.

He has that shtick where he's always talking about how color blind he is - he doesn't see race. Or, consequently, the racial issues that affect various aspects of our society.

Whether or not Kagan is a lesbian is immaterial. It's the kind of "We're all orientation-blind. We don't see it! We don't care!" attitude that came leaping to the fore when, of course, people do care. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be stampeding to ensure the topic went away as quickly as humanly possible.

if one believes the Washington Post:

"False charges," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said after a conservative blogger wrote last month on a CBS News Web site that Kagan would be the "first openly gay justice." LaBolt's description of the rumor as "charges" was itself awkward, coming from a pro-gay-rights Democratic administration. His statement almost begged for a Seinfeld-esque not-that-there's-anything-wrong-with-that qualifier.

Why the White House chose to engage on this question at all is telling of the currency and the potency of the innuendo. In an age when the Internet sometimes ignites the burners of the mainstream media, "a rumor unaddressed becomes fact," said Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who has reenlisted to advise on the Kagan nomination.

Administration officials asked Kagan directly about her sexual orientation when she was being vetted for her post as solicitor general, Dunn said in response to a question that she protested was inappropriate."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR2010051305305.html

When another white male is appointed to the Court, people notice and comment about it, such as when Alito replaced O'Connor.

And the Catholic composition of the Court is discussed at great length and frequency.

I was myself pretty horrible on Souter but more because he lived with his mother than calling him gay, I was like no mamma's boy that age should be in charge of life shaping decisions.

Hell, I'm 37, non-affiliated, mixed and hear tale of such whispers. After about 30 married because default in many minds and if you're not then something **must** be off kilter.

Let's say that the issue of Ms. Kagan's orientation either never comes up, or is brushed away with, "That's inappropriate, Senator." She gets confirmed, and right after taking the oath of office, she is either outed, or decides to come out at that point.

It would feed into the whole "Obama's got something to hide" narrative that they tea partiers and birthers have been selling. It would reflect badly on the President if the above chain of events were to happen.

First, it is not a crime to be gay. Second, it is not about Obama.

I just expressed that some would find it dishonest, especially those who are suspicious of the President in the first place. And I disagree, the President's SCOTUS appointments are very much a part of his legacy, thus they are about him.

I dated and dated and dated. But did not want the responsibility of marrying again. I might be kookoo but I didn't want....ironing those shirts, pressing those pants, running to get a beer, finding every thing he lost. I tell you a wife has more than one job. She works, she takes care of the bills, (in most cases) she cleans, she cooks, she washes. I didn't want that. I wanted to do what I wanted to do when I wanted to do it. If I didn't feel like fixing dinner and only made a sandwich..OK. And why should I wash clothes...see what I mean. A lot of women feel the same way. They like the companionship of dating, but not being tied down.

happened, I think I would relish my freedom.

Alot of women in our age group went from our family home to living with roommates to getting married and never experienced the joy of living alone.

And they chose not to, precisely because as much as they missed their husbands, they enjoyed their freedom. They had married in an era when getting married for a woman meant ironing those shirts, pressing those pants, running to get a beer, finding everything he lost, taking care of the bills, cleaning, cooking, and having to go to bed when their husband wanted to go (and obviously not necessarily to sleep). They LIKED being able to go to bed when they wanted or stay up reading, to eat ice cream for dinner, to take a trip to Europe if they wanted to and could afford it. And they knew they'd never find a man their age who would allow this. So they didn't remarry, and they've been happy.

The men their age, OTOH, who are widowed, oftentimes remarry ASAP. Sometimes within only a year or two of losing their wives. It's not that they didn't love their first wife, it's just that they're so damn lonely...and who's going to do the cooking, the cleaning, the sewing on of buttons, etc.? They were never taught how to do this stuff. They were always told their wives would do it for them. So when they are widowed, they're utterly at sea, and go looking for a new wife right away.

Way back when, my husband got called up for the draft so we decided to get married right away so he wouldn't have to go to Viet Nam! Even given a divorce in between, we remarried.

Now, I relish the time he goes away for a couple of weeks at a time, and I think he does too! I already KNOW I won't be looking for marriage material is something should happen to him. I totally enjoy the time he's away and I don't have to drop what I'm doing just because it's lunch or dinner time. Just getting up to go to the beach without thinking that I need to get back is GREAT!

Of course, going to the beach may NOT be the best option soon, just sayin'.

And IF she's is GAY, and I don't think this should even be a matter of discussion, it's HER business!! HOW she votes and why, are going to be issues I'm interested in. THAT remains to be seen.

So many divorced women I know in their 40s and 50s who won't remarry. They like their freedom and independence. It's almost as though they're reborn and have been given a new life.

Their life is full. They have their kids and friends. They date - some a lot, some not much. They also make $$$ so they ask, why do I need to be married?

there are men over the age of fifty out there who do not want a "mommy". My lady and I got together after I was fifty, and she was very near it, and we do just fine. I love to cook, she hates it, and so we have harmony in that area. I also do all the laundry and the dishes. I get my own beer, but will often bring up a glass of wine or iced tea for her when I head for the kitchen.

Iron and press? What decade are you talking about?

As for the ironing and pressing era I'm talking about, I mean the '40s and '50s (primarily), when women still did do a lot of ironing, before permanent press (or perma-wrinkled, IMO).

Here's a hint: you're more likely to find him among the nerds than you are among the bad boys.

About 19 years ago, my middle daughter, then 3, was given a toy ironing board and iron for her birthday. She was an extremely bright articulate girl. She looked at it with a look of puzzlement and then her face brightened up - "Thank you for the picnic table" she said. (I still don't know why a kid or her mom would pick it out as a fun toy.) My mom thought it hilarious.

:hi:

my live-in boyfriend is also 60, never married and no kids (that he knows of).

calling her gay because she is an unmarried woman is purely and simply a red herring. it is unfortunate that should even be an issue, but it is, because of the religious right. i'm hopeful our younger generations will finally get rid of this stupid bias. i am also hopeful that the double standard, as it applies to women, will some day go away, as well.

ellen fl

Stupid stereotypical rhetoric coming from the rw crazies once again.

But she goes both ways

and usually think they know more about the ladies sexual orientation than she does. Arrogant!

last I saw he wasn't an older single woman.

There is substantiation to it.

that someone says that someone else at a dinner party claimed he slept with him?

I'm fine with the press pursuing it in all cases, because these people CHOOSE to be in the public eye and politicians and judges have extraordinary influence over the laws that are pertinent to gay and lesbian families.

to hide it. Given the choices for those running, I may end up voting for Crist even though I would never have entertained the thought before.

As for Crist being gay, anyone who has lived in Florida for any length of time have heard enough stories and I even saw one very interesting documentary about him where one of his girl friends talked openly about "their" relationship and what her "role" was. She said she knew going in what to expect and it worked for some time, but the ended up parting.

So then he got married and "they" too could have some kind of arrangement. Just say Chawlie, we do know!

From what I've seen of Meek (which if little to none) I'm not sure about him so far. He could be biding his time until after the primary, so we shall see.

But yeah, I think many people assume I must be lesbian. What other explanation could there be??

There has been talk about this for years. IT's perfectly natural that the talk in the media would ratchet up to a higher volume, when she is nominated to the highest court in the land.

The only people who should be disturbed by that are those that think there is something wrong with being gay.

It's a fairly value neutral question.

And that's the Repub base. But the Repub leadership won't go there because they know that there is growing support for gay rights in this country, and opposing her because she is gay (if she is, that is) would politically cost them. So the net benefit is zero.

At least we here at DU recognize it for what it is.

There's a whole package of games that get played. If she were younger and acted asexually, she'd be called frigid; if she were younger, and did not completely hide her sexuality, she'd be accused of sleeping her way to the top. She's an older unmarried successful woman, so the game is to accuse her of being a lesbian

They are married so they think everyone else just can. And yet there are more women than men so some straight women just can't get married - that never occurs to them. Until polygamy is allowed, it's idiotic to assume there won't be straight women who never marry.

Some people just look for reasons to hate others no matter who or why...it just seems to come naturally for some.
For some, it's probably more acceptable than hating her because she is a Jew.

mark

profile like that.;)

Nothing new.

and get defensive about it as if it's a bad thing. it's common for gays to have dated the opposite sex, especially years ago . doesn't mean anything. that gov from nj even got married a couple times and had kids.

and Spitzer's response seemed to show he knew she was gay. he said he knew she dated guys in college and it wasn't up to him to say more.

also there is the partner .

Obama knows she is gay also

I believe that is why some people believe she is gay. For whatever reason they are not open about it to the media and that is too bad. I don't think it would hurt her confirmation chances one bit.

I had a female friend for many years whom I have no doubt was assumed to be "my longtime life partner" by some people I knew. She wasn't. She was just a longtime friend. Yet I'm sure you could've asked any number of people who knew me and they would have said we were lovers. If you probed further, though, what you would have found is nothing to base the assumption on other than "Well, they go places together all the time" and "They've been together since college" and "Well, neither one is married and they're both of a certain age, so I just assumed..."

Until there is better evidence of Kagan's alleged gay status than "Supposedly her longtime life partner is well known at Harvard," I believe all we are left with is rumor, assumption, speculation and conjecture.

there would be all this righteous indignation if her supposed paramour at Harvard were a man.

I am taking her at her word, since she has said she is straight (albeit through WH spokespeople.)

But what this episode has shown, once again, is that many Democrats hold a noxious and disturbing double standard when discussing a public person's family life.

of course this is grist for the mill. Why would it be anything else. Liberals and conservatives alike are fine with straight relationships but conservatives are not ok with gay relationships. Therefore, with this being a political nomination, its going to be an issue of political contention.

Some here dont care, which is fine. Some here think it would great if she were, which is also fine. Where is the noxious part?

Not that i really care either way, but when it comes to a persons orientation, there is not such thing as "better evidence" aside from video of sex or a direct statement.

So don't be surprised if people run with what they think they have.

We need things to 'fuss' about, to point fingers about.

the short haircut doesn't help, either.

:eyes:
rocktivity

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It might not be popular, but a lot of people happen to agree with him.

There are lot of idiots out there who believe than any woman who doesn't fit their preconceived notion of what a woman should look like must mean that they are a lesbian. And those are exactly the kind of idiots who are calling Kagan a lesbian.

oh, wait. maybe you can't tell a book by its cover.

And I never pick up a book with an ugly cover haha.
Except all my college text-books of course, but those were not optional.

...with your standard blond know-nothing. And you realize she is married to Ellen, right? Book by cover, indeed.

to the extent some people are basing their judgment about Kagan's sexual orientation on her appearance, the fact that someone like Portia de Rossi is gay is prime evidence of the stupidity of such judgments.

I think the reason why many homophobes are making this an issue is because of stereotypes that gay women are masculine. sterotyping is, of course, one of the ignorances that leads to prejudice and bigotry.

It's her judicial philosophy that I'm interested in, not her sexual orientation.
And just why wasn't there all this speculation about David Souter's orientation? Not that I cared in that situation either - and he turned out to be the best Bush appointee. Of course, that's not saying much, but Souter certainly exceeded my lowest expectations.

********
To me, this is just another RW sexist slur. There is no reason to presume that every woman has to be married or that she is otherwise a lesbian. Marriage is certainly no guarantee that one is straight - for either gender - and why should any of us care so long as the relationships are between consenting adults, are not abusive and are not hurting others?

Sotomayor. It makes no difference at all the fact she's driving those across the aisle crazy, is plenty enough qualifications to me. The world needs more women in postions of power, anyones private lives to me are, just private.

to wonder if someone might be gay?

That's certainly been the case around here, lately.

runs...hides...

The way she will rule, yes. Her personal life is no one's business. IMHO the court needs diversity.