Since pretty much every gay person here is unable to explain the whole Kagan thing

Let's have a professional try.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/asking-the-question-ctd.html

In short, while a potential justice's personal life or sexual orientation can certainly influence her innate understanding and experience in the world, it is no more relevant than thousands of other factors in her life experience.

This is a sentence that could only be written by a straight person.

This is what a gay person must go through to get to adulthood: he or she must figure out she's different at varying ages, but usually, clearly by mid-adolescence. The dating question looms, as does the marriage question. What do you do? Many gay kids pretend to be straight for a while (mercifully fewer than in the past); many come out and begin the difficult pursuit of love and intimacy and, in some states, marriage; others make a strategic decision to lie about themselves or to construct a public persona drained of any emotional or relationship content so they always avoid the question. At every stage of this evolution, the gay person is made deeply aware of his or her marginalized status as a citizen and as a human being. Few identities expose as much how the law can oppress, stigmatize and alienate.

With all due respect, this is more relevant than "thousands of other factors" in someone's life. This experience, certainly for someone of my generation and older, cannot but be formative, whether it is repressed, engaged, hidden or run from. To remain closeted requires a massive use of emotional and psychological resources to distract, dissociate, lie, euphemize, cover, appease. It requires deception every day.

This question is not about someone's sexual preferences - by which I mean, whether you like your partners tall, short, hairy, buxom, skinny, fat, whatever, and what you might like to do with them. It's about your emotional core and the integrity with which you have lived your life. It matters if a Supreme Court Justice has lived his life as a convenient careerist lie. It tells us a lot about him. And for gay people who have had to make these choices, and risked a huge amount to do so, it is somewhat offensive to be told this experience is just not that big a deal.

end of quote

I really can't add much to this.

If Ms. Kagan had structured her life the way Sullivan seems to want, then none of us would have ever heard of her.

And how did her sexual or affectional preference get to be your or Sullivan's business and why do you need for her to be declaratory about it? Seems more about you than her.

She is not harming the community so what exactly is the problem? This whole thing seems to have a sexist component to it.

She says she's not gay. Her friends say she's not gay.



Are you saying she's lying?

and sexist to boot. That is the problem.

The question is ok. I'm just wondering why it was asked... Are we going to question every unmarried person over a certain age?


If she had 2 kids, nobody would've asked the question. If she was previously married, nobody would've asked the question.



The question was asked because of a stereotype in this case... and as a poster above said, that's kind of sexist.


Nobody asked Justice Souter (who has never married and has no kids) if he was gay. It's a sexist double-standard.

in point of fact it was in response to rumors he might be gay that we heard about his being left at the alter by a woman when he was young. As to your other point, there were several different people who directly stated that it was an open secret she had a female partner while at Yale. Clearly those people were wrong but that is more than stereotype.

is that when he was up for confirmation, there was no Internet, at least nowhere even remotely what we have today.

I guaran-damn-tee you that if there had been, Bush the Elder would have been forced to withdraw the nomination.

Gay corporate malfeasance
Gay corporate personhood
Gay immigration rights
Gay firearms ownership
Gay campaign finance

Hm.

Aside from Lawrence v. Texas, I'm not seeing it.

Maybe (as Sullivan suggests) some folks consider their "sexual preferences" to be paramount to the "emotional core and the integrity with which you have lived your life", but the job of a Supreme Court Justice has nothing to do with that.

years. DADT already has not once, but twice.

But the simple fact of the matter is, even if gay rights issues do come up in the next five years, dozens of other issues will too that have no particular relevancy to sexual orientation. I think that's the whole point which is being missed by you and Sullivan.

Then why the Hell didn't they just nominate Pam Karlan? Who is not only gay, but a better nominee regardless.

I have a number of objections to Kagan. Her sexual orientation (whatever it may be) is not one of them. And I hate the thought of having to defend her from homophobic idiots who want to make that THE issue. Sort of like I hated it when that racist homophobe picked on Lindsey Graham a couple of weeks ago. Hate having to defend him too.

picked on either. And I dislike him. But it seemed really disgustingly wrong.

Do we pose the question, "Are you a heterosexual?" to OTHER nominees? NO! Unless a topic directly relates tio the competence of the person vying for the job, it should not be asked.....PERIOD!

Several straight people just don't want to hear it. They benefit from misunderstanding, so they are not going to surrender that tool.

and Sullivan's (and others) tortured logic is just self-centered drivel.

Either sexual orientation is relevant to an appointment to SCOTUS or it is not. So what is Sullivan saying, that he can ask the question simply because as a gay person he has suffered? It makes no sense to me.