Over at Elena Kagan OutWatch, Sullivan has a new “theory:”
So what if the third option is correct and Obama is actually being extremely shrewd?
If he or Kagan had announced her sexual orientation from the get-go, it would allow the Christianist right to portray her nomination as a “homosexual-lesbian” take-over of the court, enabled by a radical commie/Muslim president. But by remaining silent and ambiguous on this, the Obama peeps can either depend on the whole thing going away – or wait for some kind of outing, and capitalize on the inevitable sympathy that would prompt among senators, and make her confirmation a shoo-in. It would be better for Obama to provoke such an outing from his “left”. That would allow senators to rally around the closet their generation cherishes and defend a person from “charges” that invade her “privacy.” Win-win, right?
The president can say, appealing to the middle, that he respects privacy and has reluctantly allowed Kagan to come out under despicable pressure from people like me. Then he dares the Christianist right to vote against her merely because she is a discreet lesbian. And so his jujitsu becomes a triumph for gay rights, and his nominee, who I suspect is far more left-liberal than anyone now believes, helps shape the court for a generation.
I guess that makes you and the Christianists pretty predictable, then, doesn’t it?
Joseph Nobles
Is Sully fer it or agin it?
demo woman
or wait for some kind of outing, and capitalize on the inevitable sympathy that would prompt among senators, and make her confirmation a shoo-in.
What the hell is that guy smoking? I want some of that pixie dust.
dmsilev
Sullivan reminds me of the Sicilian guy from _The Princess Bride_:
dms
MikeJ
Once again I’ll need to break out my copy of Steve Jackson Games Illuminati to keep up with the crazy. Or maybe Paranoia.
dmsilev
Oh, and this clearly is another entry in what the Daily Show dubbed “Gaywatch”.
dms
twiffer
@dmsilev: by that analogy, she must be bi.
asiangrrlMN
@twiffer: Told you all that in the last Sully/Kagan thread.
taylormattd
I already posted this deep in the other Sully / Kagan thread, but perhaps it warrants repeating here.
John, please turn your blog flannel in solidarity with Sully’s attempt to get the truth regarding Kagan’s secret lesbianism.
demo woman
We need a blog intervention. No more posts on what Sully thinks!!!!!!!!!!
dmsilev
@twiffer: Either that, or she’s spent the last several years building up an immunity to
iocane powdersex. Take your pick.dms
bobbo
Huh? Outing would prompt “inevitable sympathy” among Senators? The Christianist right would have some problem voting against her because she is a lesbian? (sorry, discreet lesbian) And she is “more left-liberal than anyone now believes” based on what now?
MattF
Sullivan is definitely into WTF territory here. I guess that’s his privilege.
twiffer
@asiangrrlMN: forgive me, i haven’t been keeping up.
beltane
@demo woman: It’s not pixie dust he’s smoking. I can’t wait for him to return to his regularly scheduled “Out of the Cannabis Closet” series.
twiffer
@dmsilev: as you wish.
Chyron HR
@dmsilev:
He looks like a homonculous? Yes.
demkat620
Why do we care whether she is gay? That’s what I don’t get.
I. Don’t. Care.
Does she agree with Citizens United or want to uphold Roe V. Wade?
That’s what I care about.
Kyle
In a limited sense I support Sully on this one. I have no idea, and don’t care, what his motives are, but if Ms. Kagan is gay, and that is an open secret among the Washington set, then she needs to answer the question of whether she’s gay.
If the basis for the claim that she’s gay is merely her unmarried status and her appearance, then the question should not be asked. However, the “vibe” I’m getting is that she is gay, and those who know her know this and have helped her keep that
shamefulfact secret.It’s seems that she isn’t responding to the question one way or another, and to me that supports the “open secret” scenario. If she’s not gay, she can simply say, no, but thanks for asking. If she is gay, then she, like too many gay folk who hide in the closet, perpetuate the belief that there is some shame in being gay, and that shit has to stop. It’s 2010 folks; are we really afraid of the truth?
asiangrrlMN
@twiffer: Heh. I got blamed for the gay Asian males single ads in the other thread, and it’s partly because I asked what if Kagan was bi?
Annie
@dmsilev:
LOL
Exactly…I was just thinking the same thing.
cyntax
I’m not sure, but maybe this is Silly-Sully’s way of talking himself down from the very unproductive and non-sensical ledge he’s managed to get stuck on.
One can hope.
Bella Q
Given how wound up he is on this topic, expect to see Sullivan spending a great deal of time in WTF territory over the next few
daysweeks as the Elana Kagan confirmation process continues. He’s trying to draft her into his crusade against the Christianists, as the new lesbian leader for tolerance. Of course, he’s neglected to ask her whether she’d like to hold that title.All that said, I also suspect she’s more liberal than she her published work product suggests; she saw who replaced Clinton and I give her credit for reading the tea leaves of ideological drift rightward on the part of the Republicans who play to the loud base.
Americanadian
Maybe Kagan just doesn’t want us all up in her sex life, and her lack of statements on this matter don’t reflect any “shame” so much as a desire for privacy.
What’s next? Demanding that all government nominees in need of confirmation submit a sex tape so we can all see which side of the plate they bat from?
demo woman
@Kyle: When was the last time a Supreme Court nominee was asked about their sexual preferences? It’s insulting to ask her just because she is an unmarried female. Her sexual life is none of my business.
John Cole
@cyntax: We aren’t there yet.
licensed to kill time
Sully reminds me of the birther creeps in his unwillingness to let it go. That dogged persistence in pursuing an irrelevancy, the insistence that the whole thing would go away if she just said it, the barely concealed disrespect for the person of whom the proof is demanded, it all reeks of birtherism.
ETA: Which is to say, LoonyTunes.
Hob
Kyle, who’s asking this question that Kagan “needs to answer”?
Andrew Sullivan.
And who’s given you the idea that her orientation is “an open secret among the Washington set”?
Andrew Sullivan. (Plus, I guess, a commenter here who assures us that it’s an open secret at Harvard. Whether Harvard gossip is as important as Washington gossip, I’m not sure– better check the Constitution.)
And whence comes the notion that Kagan is “hiding” and “in the closet”, even if everyone knows the hidden, closeted fact?
Andrew Sullivan.
A perfect circle of self-reinforcing self-righteous bullshit.
Boots Day
Sullivan had a post the other day on the reaction of the Christian right to the Kagan nomination called “Her Sexual Orientation Above All.” Then he apparently decided he agreed with them.
Catsy
@Kyle:
It is incumbent upon people like you and Sullivan to answer the unanswerable question: why? Of what possible relevance to the job in question is her sexual orientation?
The only argument of any substance that I’ve heard is that some high-profile and very important cases involving homosexuality might come before the court. In this case I use “substance” very advisedly: the argument is plain idiotic. High-profile cases involving Catholicism and the Church might also come before the court–and I can think of a few Justices I’d like to see recuse themselves from that action. And it’s a foregone conclusion that at some point the court will hear arguments on behalf of plaintiffs who are white heterosexuals–does that make Roberts’ heterosexuality or skin color relevant?
jl
Cole is insane and unstable enough without paying attention to this nonsense.
Report to Tunch, to be punched in the neck.
Take your dog for a walk.
Watch your hummingbirds.
Watch shadows slowly crawl over the landscape as the sun makes its daily circuit and we wend our way along this mortal coil, never to return again.
Anything. Just something. Not this. Not this, please.
Keeeriiiist on a crutch!
tim
@Kyle:
What Kyle said.
Midnight Marauder
@Kyle:
So what, pray tell, is your “vibe” based on, other than specious allegations and half-formed intuitions? Because it is clear that your vibe is not based on the positions of the woman herself, who I think we would all agree empowered the White House to explicitly state that she is not gay. So the question that needs to start being proposed to people like you and Sullivan is this: Why is her and the White House saying that she’s not gay, and that the issue is irrelevant, not good enough for you?
Oh wait, I think I know the answer…
Maybe it supports the “it’s none of your fucking business and it’s inconsequential to my ability to do my job” scenario? Did you and Sully ever stop to think about that? That maybe she is under no obligations of any kind, whatsoever, to answer that question? Quite frankly, I think sentiments like “she perpetuate[s] the belief that there is some shame in being gay” by not “coming out of the closet” disrespect and minimize her autonomy to function as an independent human being, in addition to being incredibly insulting and demeaning to her individual personal choices.
You have still failed to demonstrated how the “truth” is in any way germane to this issue.
Brachiator
What would Sullivan do if Obama announced that he really was a Muslim (or a Mormon) and that Kagan was his second wife?
@demo woman:
Here’s a telling contrast with respect to recently retired Justice David Souter:
Gus
I can’t think of anything I’m less interested in than the sexual orientation of a Supreme Court nominee.
twiffer
@asiangrrlMN: heh. i don’t really have any idea (or interest). i was playing the “princess bride” refs.
asiangrrlMN
@demo woman: Agreed. I don’t remember all this hoo-ha over Souter’s bachelorhood. WTF?
@twiffer: I know. I’m just tweaking the twiffer!
de stijl
In gay chess is the point to capture the queen?
tim
@Hob:
Hob, you are assuming a lot here. Sullivan has NOTHING to do with my position on Kagan which is that she is gay, should be open about it and isn’t, and in the year 2010 that is unacceptable in a public figure. As a lifestyle the closet institutionalizes and reinforces shame and anti gay bigotry, and basically Kagan is a coward.
I live in Boston and have friends in the Harvard community. Kagan is gay. It has been openly known at Harvard for many years. She has a partner of longstanding duration. The only people pretending she is NOT gay is the MSM; they also tend to pretend they have no way of knowing one way or the other which is bullshit.
But back to your Sullivan obsession: you are correct that Andy is an Ass. But just because his position on this one issue coincides with mine, doesn’t mean that he is where I get my facts or my opinion.
Your post is strawman city.
MikeJ
@asiangrrlMN: Hoo-ha is the operative word. She has one, so it’s important that the panty sniffers know what goes on with her hoo-ha.
jl
Here is an idea.
Let’s minutely and obsessively examine the orientation, motives, and speculate on the motivations of every under connected, oddly connected, or overly oddly serially connected person in US history before we waste more time on this with Kagan.
We can start with Alexander Hamilton. Our children will get to Jane Addams, and our grandchildren will get to Souter.
I cannot believe anyone is wasting their time on this stuff.
I am cranky.
cyntax
@John Cole:
Yeah, I was exhibiting some good old fashioned irrational exuberance with that one.
But I’m pretty sure that the Adminstration has betrayed me by not getting Sully to give up on this one.
Midnight Marauder
@tim:
Well then, answer the same question:
Of what possible relevance to the job in question is her sexual orientation?
de stijl
@asiangrrlMN:
In fact, I distinctly remember a lack of hoo-ha. There was no hoo-ha whatsoever IRT to Souter. Souter was entirely bereft of hoo-ha.
Zifnab
Sully, you damn fool! You’re playing right into their hands! You’ve doomed us all!
/violent fist shake at sky
jl
@de stijl: Souter has no hoo-ha? That is a dog that didn’t bark.
gnomedad
Kagan hiding that she is gay (if in fact she is): not a good thing.
Irrelevant speculation about Kagan’s sexuality: also not a good thing.
Irrelevant speculation about Kagan’s sexuality because she is not married: really, really not a good thing.
JL
Anyone else think that the whole “but she’s a lesbian!” thing is a cover for “but she’s Jewish!”?
Rosalita
Yeesh, I’m going back to teh bird thread. Sully overload.
asiangrrlMN
All right. I still don’t think her orientation matters, but if it’s such an open secret, then it should be really easy to produce a name of said partner, yes?
P.S. I didn’t use hoo-ha intentionally, but my subconscious must have been guiding me.
mr. whipple
This is a high-tech outting!
de stijl
@jl:
Like I said, All hat; no hoo-ha.
David
Oddly, the people who comment on Freerepublic have the same ❛concerns❜ that Andrew does.
DonkeyKong
I used to play with a milton bradley mouse trap game as a kid that functioned just like Sully’s brain. The rubber ball that was supposed to get to the mouse at the end of the trap always got stuck in the plastic bathtub.
Rosalita
@demo woman:
green balloons??
Comrade Dread
What the…?
Why the blazes is he so fixated on who the nominee might or not be nailing between the sheets?
Does it really matter to me what team (if any) she bats for?
And would it matter that much to the President of the United States that he would jump into a 12th dimensional chess game of let’s confirm the secret lesbian.
Ugh… guess it’s time for me to go back to ignoring Sullivan until this process is over.
cleek
just FYI, after his “Obama’s a sellout appeaser” spot on NPR today, it appears that Greenwald should now be known as “Even The Liberal Glenn Greenwald”.
slippy
@demo woman: This.
Sully is a fucking moron. What he thinks is fucking irrelevant. He did himself in with his obsequiousness to the Bell Curve authors. I won’t read anything else with his name on it.
Brachiator
@de stijl:
Not only that, all the boneheads wailing in faux outrage over the fact that Kagan has never served as a judge need to suck on this (from Wiki, emphasis mine):
I just love the uninformed selectivity over the phony issue of judicial qualifications.
slippy
@JL: Yep. The Court seems to have a dramatic predilection for Catholics. Obviously someone likes it that way.
Zifnab
@tim:
Seriously, dude. I don’t care if you’ve got photographic evidence of Elane Kagan rubbing hooch with a pile of Victoria Secret models, demanding that every gay individual get “FAG” tattooed on his or her forehead is just as obnoxious as demanding gays remain in the closet.
It’s her life. If she wants to sleep with men or women or both or neither, she has a right to privacy even in being a public figure. That right will likely be violated – repeatedly – by the time the nomination is finished. We’ll get to hear all about her secret lesbian lovers and her granite counter tops, I’m sure. But stomping your foot and demanding she give some sort of “I’m gay” press conference, or even indulge a thick witted jackass Beltway reporter’s asinine personal questions, makes you look like a complete tool.
Elane Kagan’s sexuality doesn’t fucking matter. The sooner we stop acting like it does, the sooner our nation can graduate the 2nd fucking grade.
Lee from NC
@Kyle:
Totally disagree. Gay? Not gay? “Open secret” gay? What the hell does any of that have to do with her qualifications for the job. Nothing. She doesn’t have to answer anything at all about her sex life, just like no other candidate has had to answer any questions about this.
Did any Ruth Bader Ginsburg have to answer questions about her bed partners? Or any of the others?
wrb
@tim:
That means, in my opinion at least that we cannot have a gay person on the Supreme Court in 2010. Which is too bad. In too many parts of the country too great a price will be paid by the Senators who vote for one.
Respect for privacy and civility is what could make it possible.
Poopyman
@jl:
Can we start with Mark Sanford? Cause I thought his Brazilian soulmate was kinda hot.
And with that, I’m headed back to the birds, then out for the evening.
The Moar You Know
Goddamn, maybe it’s NOBODY’S FUCKING BUSINESS.
I hate this country more with every passing day.
Kyle, I mean you specifically, but also anyone else who insists that “it’s no longer acceptable to be in the closet”. Fuck you, and fuck anybody who thinks they have the right to make decisions for anybody else.
Just Some Fuckhead
Sullivan is a twit but he speaks with a british accent so he must be really smart.
Also, this is why he doesn’t have comments enabled on his site. Because he’d hear all day every day about what a fucking twit he is.
valdivia
@JL:
LOL.
Martin
@asiangrrlMN: No, you got blamed because Google was probably keying off ‘Asian’ in your screen name.
Citizen_X
@tim: What part of “It’s completely irrelevant to the job” and “It’s none of your damned business” are you not getting here?
GREEN.
MOTHERFUCKING.
BALLOONS!
Mark S.
@de stijl:
The queens don’t have to move in a straight line.
I have a question: does Sully ever get off his ass and do any actual journalism? I mean, he just seems to throw out baseless accusations and hopes some actual reporter proves him right. Or he gets all pissy that some public figure won’t answer his rude as hell questions.
Emma
Demo Woman: This!
Who cares what he thinks? The man obviously has women issues. Something about a vaginal-American in/near a position of power drives him nuts.
No, Thatcher doesn’t count. The “strict nanny who knows what’s best for you” thing is something else altogether.
mai naem
I don’t a whole lot of Sully’s background. I just know he’s one of those annoying Oxbridge twits that Americans are all entranced by because of the mouthful of marbles upper crust accent. Anyhoo, was Sully outed himself? Is this why he is on this jihad to out every unmarried 50-some year old female with a somewhat butch appearance?
Hob
@tim: Tim, unless you’re also Kyle, I wasn’t talking to you. Kyle provided no particular justification for any of the stuff he said; he didn’t say he knew stuff because he’s at Harvard. Based on what he wrote, he was just summing up what he’d read in the current discussion, which was basically all about stuff Andrew Sullivan had said.
I’m still at a loss to understand, if Kagan is supposedly refusing to answer a question, who or what is the person or constituency in public life that’s asking this question, if you don’t count us chickens here. And as far as I can tell, that would be Andrew fucking Sullivan.
Also perplexing is the fact that, if everyone knows this thing, and reporters are (per Tim) the only people who are pretending otherwise, yet somehow no brave soul has come forward even anonymously to say “why yes, I know Ms. Kagan’s girlfriend and so does everyone in Boston” other than a couple of blog commenters. Conspiracy? Incompetence? Is the press suddenly just not interested in that sort of thing? Or is absolutely everyone who’s at Harvard, and everyone who knows anyone at Harvard, except Tim and Nate Dawg, so scrupulously principled as to keep mum until Kagan says otherwise?
Kyle
@demo woman: I agree her sexual life is none of our business, but if you think that being gay is simply about who you sleep with, then you’ve really miss the point. Shall I list for you all the folks who have been beaten or killed in this country because they are gay? I’m sure the folks who beat or killed them cared little who in particular they slept with. The fact that they desired to sleep with someone of the same sex was enough.
And to be clear, I have no question that she is qualified and certainly don’t think that her being gay should affect her nomination. My point was simply that gay folk who perpetuate the belief that there is something shameful about being gay have no right to claim privacy, especially if that person is a public figure whose gayness is an open secret (e.g., Ricky Martin until he came out; Anderson Cooper now).
However, I will admit that my vibe was apparently off. If she and the White House have issued denials (as someone down thread says), then that should be the end of it. I had been led to believe that they were dodging the question.
mistersnrub
11th dimensional gay chess would be a good band name. Not as good as The Homosexual Agenda, though (a punk band, natch).
silentbeep
@demo woman:
yeah but it’s so fun to laugh at him because of these richly deserved comments! ;)
BombIranForChrist
When is Sully going to come out as a retarded person?
silentbeep
@demo woman:
also: don’t agree with the intervention. When people say dumb stuff they should be called on it. John Cole: Go on ahead!
Brachiator
@Kyle:
Bullshit.
JL
@slippy:
Well Catholic has equaled “against abortion” so it’s an easy way to remove it as a question.
I just observe that so many Republicans publicly declare their support for Israel and Jewish people but at the same time practically proselytize their own faith. In general (this doesn’t go for every pro-Israel Republican) I interpret that as either an anti-Islam/pro-war position (Israel is an ally in the middle east) or they are pro-Israel in order to push forward the Second Coming, or some combo of both.
Despite support for Israel and lip-service to Jewish people (and talk of a “Judeo-Christian” Constitution) I don’t really think those people really like or understand Jewish people at all. So I’m surprised there isn’t more talk about her religion.
I get the feeling people are substituting their distrust or dislike for her religion with total outrage over unconfirmed rumors about her sexuality. As if it’s a specific dog-whistle that they can get away with saying publicly because they are used to publicly bashing gay people (or rumored-to-be-gay people).
Hob
@Kyle:
Oh my.
Since you’re not talking about people who have actually taken anti-gay political stands, like the whole Republican Closet Caucus, it looks like what you mean by “perpetuating the belief that there’s something shameful…” is just not outing oneself to everyone, period.
So your point is that gay folk who claim privacy have no right to claim privacy, period.
Not just (as Harvey Milk said) that people should decide to come out, because that’ll help everyone. But that they have no right not to.
If that’s what you meant, then fuck you.
Kyle
@<a href="#[email protected]Lee from NC: 755924″>The Moar You Know:
See my response above. But you do realize when the wife or husband is trotted at the announcement of an nomination, then that pretty much answer the question about the nominees sexuality.
Further, in no way should a nominee have to explain the fact that she or he has no spouse, and in this instance, if she’s says she’s not gay (and that’s not a lie), then we should move on.
And you’re correct, gay or straight, it should have no effect on her nomination. I was just pulling for truth telling.
Fern
@Kyle:
Well, I’m deeply grateful that you do not get to make the rules.
Also, what Brachiator said.
Nate Dawg
Gay folk shouldn’t be bound by any monolithic career suicide pact with all other a gay folk. You are an individual first and foremost. If she doesn’t want to be out, she shouldn’t be forced to be, and the worst thing that could happen is the Washington media take up Sully’s gayhunt and derail the nomination over accusations of clit diddling.
Sully usually takes haughty principled stands, but I fail to see who she fantasizes about while whacking it to have any bearing on what sort of Justice she would be.
But keep this caveat in mind: She’s gay. Just because Sully’s being an asshole about this doesn’t mean you should assume he’s wrong…..unless you don’t regret being wrong.
Kyle
@The Moar You Know: Well, Moar, I live in San Francisco, come try. Maybe you can do it on your way out of the country that you loath so completely. Thanks for adding so much to the dialog.
JL
Overall, let the morons of the world obsess over her sexual orientation. It just proves each and every time they discuss it that they NEVER EVER EVER really cared about adherence to the Constitution which they claim the is the ONLY thing they care about.
tim
@Midnight Marauder:
Goes to character and her ability to objectively rule on LGBT cases likely to come before the court in the future.
Since she is gay, as everyone here in Boston knows, and has a long time partner, yet refuses to acknowledge that partner in a public way, she needs to be asked why that is, what it says about her comfort level with herself and her orientation, and if it isn’t a sure sign that she finds her orientation to be shameful, something to be hidden and denied, and what that says about how she feels about gay people in general…are they equal to straight people? Do they deserve the same legal and societal rights and obligations? If so, then why is she hiding who she is?
But more overall, I’m sick to death of gay public figures trying to have it both ways.
If Obama can talk about Kagan’s family, geneology, background, childhood, and everything else, it is ridiculous to pretend that the woman has no sexual/emotional orientation and that it has no relation to who she is.
Fern
@Kyle:
I realize no such thing. The fact that someone has a spouse tells you very little about what goes on (or doesn’t go on) between the sheets. It also tells you very little about their sexual activity outside the marriage.
I personally know a surprising number of lesbians who married young and didn’t come out as lesbians until much later.
silentbeep
@dmsilev: Sicilian guy from princess bride? So this. thanks for making me giggle at my desk.
Ash Can
::head hits desk with resounding thump::
No, she doesn’t “need” to answer the question. The question should never be asked in the first place, because it’s nobody’s goddamned business. Seriously, this isn’t rocket science.
Midnight Marauder
@Nate Dawg:
Keep this caveat in mind as well: It doesn’t fucking matter.
Comrade Luke
This whole conversation is fucked up. Can you imagine how humiliating it must be, if she’s hetero, to hear nothing but “she must be gay”, because of her looks and relationship status?
Elena Kagan’s sexual orientation is as relevant as Lindsey Graham’s.
Little Boots
“but I fail to see who she fantasizes about while whacking it to have any bearing on what sort of Justice she would be.”
I do. I think it might make her more sympathetic to minorities generally and the gay minority specifically. I don’t think Sotomayor’s ethnicity was the be-all, end-all, but, yes, I think her background, very much including being Latina, does influence her somewhat, even if it’s just a little bit of, dare I say, empathy for outsiders or immigrants.
In the same way, Kagan’s Jewishness may influence her, a little, just because her religion is a distinct minority in this country, with a very distinct history of oppression. It does seem a little weird that we can freely discuss her religion, but not her sexuality. Neither is directly relevant, or definitive in any sense, but both may play some little role in her outlook on life and the law.
Little Boots
“This whole conversation is fucked up. Can you imagine how humiliating it must be, if she’s hetero, to hear nothing but “she must be gay”, because of her looks and relationship status?”
It would depend on how homophobic she is. Maybe she’d find it funny.
JL
@tim:
So Scalia then cannot objectively rule on a case involving Italians? Or Catholics? Should Thomas recuse himself from cases that involve black people? Should Ginsburg and Sotomayor recuse themselves from any case involving women?
This “thinking” assumes that the only people who could possibly be objective are old, white, Christian men because they have no biases.
Guess what, Tim, no one is a blank slate of objectivity and saying that a person is unable to review facts and hear arguments because of who turns them on is totally, totally ridiculous.
Fern
@Little Boots: Doubtful, under the circumstances. Besides, it’s not about how homophobic (or not) she is – it’s about how homophobic the senators and their constituencies are.
Midnight Marauder
@tim:
I trust then that you hold these concerns about heterosexual white men and their ability to rule on cases likely to come before the court involving their fellow heterosexual white male brethren.
She needs to be asked why she hasn’t “come out” or if she finds her sexual orientation shameful? During her Supreme Court confirmation hearing? Is this a real argument? Here is what you need to know about her comfort level with herself and her orientation: it clearly is not a major issue for her. It has not been the focal point of her academic life, it has not been the focal point of her career, it has not been the great motivating passion of her existence. You are imparting on her your own individual hopes and desire for a Great Gay Supreme Court Justice, instead of respecting the decisions she has made of her own free will and volition. You want to argue her decisions based on your own perspective, while disregarding the perspective on her end that led her to make the decision she has.
And why are you so sure that she is hiding who she is? What if she and her associates came out and told you that the issue of her sexual orientation was a nonissue for her, and she would appreciate it if others would respect that decision? That her sexual orientation is not the end-all, be-all of what represents the essence of Elena Kagan?
What, do you mean having the right to discuss their sexuality on their own terms? That’s a tough break for you, then.
Again, why are you taking the position that just because they didn’t talk about her sexual orientation, then they are pretending that she is some kind of queer monster or asexual weirdo? Hey, this is going to sound pretty wild, but what if Elena Kagan thinks that her sexual orientation has no relation to her ability to serve as a Supreme Court Justice?
How is that going to tickle your delicate sensibilities?
JL
@Little Boots:
So then only white straight people can be on the SCOTUS?
Oh, I guess only white, straight CHRISTIAN people can be on the SCOTUS in your opinion.
Are you listening to yourself?
BTW, the Court is almost entirely Catholic. Catholics are a minority religion in this country too. OMG! They just might sympathize with a minority! The horror! Imagine! Sympathizing with a minority! Everyone knows that judges MUST rule with the majority skin color, religion, sexual orientation, gender, nationality NO MATTER THE FACTS OF THE CASE OR THE EFFICACY OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE.
Oy.
Kyle
Okay, I’ll try again and will point you to Tim’s post at 86 above. I can’t verify his assertions, but if they are true let’s examine:
She is the Solicitor General of the US and was the dean of Harvard Law School, and if everyone “knew” then there is no career suicide on the table, is there? So then let’s ponder on what other reasons she would have to keep it a secret?
I’ll give you the “it’s none of your business” and I really wish that were the case, but if everyone in Boston “knows it” (according to Tim), then she apparently let’s some folks in on the secret, so she has arguably opted out of that one.
So what’s left? I’m listening.
Little Boots
Why do you assume that I assume empathy toward minorities, including my own, which is gay people, is a bad thing? It’s odd you would jump to that.
Lee from NC
@Little Boots:
“It does seem a little weird that we can freely discuss her religion, but not her sexuality.”
We are freely discussing her sexuality.
What is not appropriate is for Congress to drill her (get it, I made a funny) on her religious beliefs nor on her sexual behavior.
IOW, I don’ t think she’ll be facing any probing (again with the funny) questions on her religion from Congress, as it should be. And she shouldn’t have to face questions on the other private aspects of her life, such as her sexuality.
Religion is private for most people and so should sexuality be.
Little Boots
And the Catholic thing is interesting. Yes, I think Scalia’s catholicism informs his homophobia and affects his rulings about gay rights.
Midnight Marauder
@Kyle:
@Kyle:
Kyle
One more point: Let’s review some other famous folks whose gayness was none of our business: Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, George Rekers.
They were gay, and tried to hide it. They wound up as freak shows. The closet has it’s price, and they paid heavily. Is it too much to ask if Ms. Kagan has paid a similar price? I have to admit that I can’t even answer that one, but I think it’s a legitimate question.
Ash Can
@ Little Boots: I don’t disagree, and I do think it would be a positive if she had this particular insight into these particular issues. What I and others here take issue with is the idea that if she doesn’t publicly declare her sexual orientation (or lack thereof), she’s somehow at fault. That’s patently ridiculous.
Resident Firebagger
Ya think George Rekers plays 11-dimensional gay chess on vacation?
Douglas
I demand to know whether or not Kagan owns, or has owned pets (or in turn, is or was owned by one or several cats).
Her pet ownership might influence her opinion that deals with animals, after all, so it would be irresponsible n ot to interrogate her.
Also, anyone who thinks that Kagan should be under no obligation to answer these questions obviously supports animal abuse, too.
@Kyle:
Note another common factor among those three? They’re all anti-gay crusaders, which is why it mattered. It’s not the gayness, it’s the hipocrisy, …
Ash Can
@ Kyle: I’d say that, in being silent on the subject, Kagan herself is saying that, yes, it is too much to ask, and no, it’s not a legitimate question.
xero
“They were gay, and tried to hide it. They wound up as freak shows.”
I wasn’t their orientation, it was their hypocrisy. If Miss Kagan railed against the evils of teh gay, and subsequently found herself embroiled in a scandal involving same, the comparison would be apt. However, she is a SCOTUS nominee who some people think might be gay.
Midnight Marauder
@Kyle:
That is one amazingly tortured, erroneous analogy you’ve created there.
Kudos.
JL
@Kyle:
No, they didn’t end up as freak shows because they didn’t hold press conferences about their orientations.
They are freak shows because they DID hold press conferences about legislating against gays, about how gays were going to hell and profited off of attempting to de-gay gays. And then it was revealed that they were gay the whole time.
It’s the hypocrisy, not the desire to keep their private lives private.
BTW, why is it that I hear people constantly saying “don’t flaunt it” and “I don’t want to see it or hear about it” but now all I hear is “Kagan MUST come out or else!”
Hob
@Kyle: Are you even reading what you write from one comment to the next? I mean, just a second ago you were going by Tim’s assertion that Kagan is known by everyone in Boston to be in a stable relationship with a woman. But now, unless she announces it to the whole rest of the world, she’s so deeply closeted that she’s setting herself up for a Ted Haggard moment. Makes no sense.
Haggard & co. were freakshows because they constantly publicly expressed anti-gay hatred, and either believed their own bullshit or were so terrified of discovery that they could only get their jollies in the most secretive and sleazy ways, and lied to their friends and their colleagues and their spouses. Not that there’s anything wrong with sleaze per se, but those guys had clearly got themselves twisted up in so many knots that when they got caught, it was bound to be something fairly colorful.
But in your scenario, I don’t even understand what Kagan is supposedly putting herself at risk of. She’s all self-hating and unhappily closeted (except to everyone she knows and works with), so… she ends up running around with hookers and betraying her long-term same-sex relationship that everyone already knows about? Wha?
Little Boots
Suddenly cannot post. Weird, it was fine for a while. Now, seems impossible. Hopefully not.
tatertot
@Catsy:
http://www.dykestowatchoutfor.com
“why does she have to have a sexuality at all?”
nuff said
Brachiator
@Kyle:
Who appointed you toll collector?
Gwangung
Like it does for heterosexuals?
Like hell it does.
tim
@JL:
You should probably read and comprehend what I write before you respond.
Midnight Marauder
@tim:
That response was merely pointing out the natural extrapolation of the point you were making. If you find this disappointing, then it is unfortunate you did not have this realization before you attempted to make said point.
tim
People: one more time, it is the fact that she chooses to HIDE her orientation that is the problem, not that her orientation is gay.
It’s telling that so many here keep saying “it doesn’t matter!” “It has no bearing!” “It is not important or relevant!”
Well, if it is not relevant and doesn’t matter and is not important, why does Kagan go to such lengths in her life to hide it from the public at large, and why the hell doesn’t she just come out? I mean, if it doesn’t matter and all?
Midnight Marauder
@tim:
This is the biggest objection I have to your position. You continue to classify her decision of not talking about her sexual orientation as “hiding.” You impart a negative connotation on a decision that is borne not out of negativity, but out of particular individuality. Is there any kind of Constitutional standard or federal statue dictating that Supreme Court nominees must disclose and discuss their sexual orientation? No, there is not.
Because she doesn’t owe you a goddamn thing, that’s why. You can be angry with her decision, but you most certainly cannot impetuously demand that she “come out” to satisfy some ambiguous desire you have to “fight the good fight.”
de stijl
@tim:
What matters is that it is her choice to remain in the closet or not or somewhere halfway in between.
Her closetedness, like her orientation, is none of my business (nor yours).
JL
@tim:
Only after reading this post could an objective reader get that from the post I originally responded to. But anyway, now I see what you are trying to say.
So, what you are trying to say is that by not holding a press conference about what gender turns her on, Kagan cannot “objectively rule on LGBT cases likely to come before the court in the future.” ?!?!?!
If you are not saying that, then what precisely “Goes to character and her ability to objectively rule on LGBT cases likely to come before the court in the future.”?
tim
Her closetedness speaks volumes about her character and lack of courage. She doesn’t owe me anything, she owes it to herself as a human being to come out and live openly as who she is; if she can’t do that, and she clearly can’t, then she drops a number of rungs on the ladder of credibility and is not worthy of my respect.
de stijl and midnight marauder: again, you don’t answer my question: if this issue is unimportant, why doesn’t she just come out? And if it is not important, why are you both near hysterical in telling me to shut up about it?
You two are examples of the core commenters on here who spend much of your time telling those who disagree with John or wander too far afield from BJ approved groupthink to shut up and go away. Like pissant bullies guarding the playground, desperate to control the environment, you insult and threaten and spit and kick rather than simply acknowledge an area of disagreement. Fuck you. Your hostility cuts no ice with me.
Now I’m going to metaphorically kick you in the shins and continue playing in the BJ cyber sandbox whether you like it or not. Bite me.
de stijl
@tim:
I don’t know. I’m not her.
JL
@tim:
First off, your evidence of her “closetedness” is “i live in Boston and I know” is as good as the evidence I have that Richard Gere really did have an incident with a gerbil (I lost count how many people say their dads are Cedars doctors who were there that night and saw the rodent in question).
Second, I quibble with the idea that she is hiding anything if she is in fact gay. Deciding to not hold a press conference where she talks about her sex life seems like a smart decision to me and evidence of wisdom, not weakness or lack of character.
Third, this “issue” has taken on a life of its own with no proof of anything and has been taken up by those who want to derail her ratification as a Justice. Why should she answer to those people?
Simply staying silent on this non-issue and watching the silly people act silly seems like the right move. Again, it’s an example of levelheadedness and good decision making.
One can make several great arguments why she should come out if she is gay. But this is not it.
wrb
Because then it is unlikely that she could be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice
Cerberus
Hey, who here is queer?
Oh, look. I am. As a bonus, I’m also deeply involved in LGBT rights issues.
I guess that gives me a little bit of authority here regarding my opinion.
Okay, it’s obviously very important to out Kagan if it’s true that she’s gay, owing to her long history of campaigning against gay rights issues and working against the rights of gay people and gay families.
Wait, what’s that you say? She’s never done that?
Then fuck off.
Seriously, I don’t want to hear any bullshit about “no no, I’ve got a hunch” nor “Yeah, my bigoted rich white friends at Harvard say she’s a big fat dyke with a lover I conveniently can’t name and have never met and this is all second-hand hearsay”. Nope, zip it.
No, fuck you tim and Kyle, she doesn’t owe shit to the community and demanding someone come out, robbing them of the agency is not something we do lightly. It’s not a good way to come out, it’s potentially traumatic, it’s demeaning to the subject who has all their expectations of privacy in sexual matters erased.
It’s why it’s something we only do to enemies who have a long history of actively working against the queer community while literally fucking us.
Capiche?
Dear Bob in Himmel, listening to your whiny ass “I’m only thinking of the poor queers while I rant about how she’s a filthy dyke” is possibly the most dehumanizing pile of bullshit I’ve seen this week. The queer community? We’re not your fucking pawns to be political icons and debating tactics.
We’re real fucking people with real fucking lives.
And we deserve the basic level of support that is naturally given to straight people (oh, I should say those straight people who don’t have the inconvenience of being non-gender-conforming in looks or behavior and thus have to suffer a never ending stream of accusations of lesbianism).
Because and I’ll bold it this time, we’re real fucking people with real fucking lives.
Oh, and a little tip on the side from someone of the female side of the queer spectrum?
Women who are uppity or dare to go unmarried are accused of being lesbians constantly. By their peers, their bosses, random people on the street…everyone. Hillary Clinton was attacked as a dyke, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Reno, Condi Rice. Any famous or powerful woman anywhere? She’s been accused of being a dyke pretty regularly. So you’re “well I heard it was an open secret bullshit” has a good chance of being just that.
Seriously though, fuck.
Watch this and pay extra attention to the last line. Cause this dehumanizing shit you and Sully are playing is not “ally work”. It’s annoying and you need to cut it the fuck out.
de stijl
@tim:
I’ve neither threatened you nor insulted you.
However, you’ve insulted me, but I don’t really care very much. Hey, it’s the internet; it happens.
tim
@Cerberus:
I totally and completely disagree with you. And in keeping with the same degree of respect you accord me and my opinion: go fuck yourself with a baseball bat you angry, arrogant psycho.
Midnight Marauder
@tim:
Because she has no obligation to do so.
Who is hysterical? I am merely responding to the points you are bringing up and telling you why I think they are bogus. If you find that hysterical, my apologies.
You’re going to have a hard time finding an example of me insulting and/or threatening you (or any other commenter not named BTD or Makewi), as opposed to consistently acknowledging that I disagree with you and explaining why.
Obviously, that is because such incidents do not exist.
And I’m sorry your arguments continue to find no traction in this thread. Again, I would be insulted as well if people consistently rejected the ideas I was touting.
Cerberus
Know what?
Fuck it.
She’s quadsexual.
That’s right, us queers invented two whole new sexes while you were sleeping just to have more lifestyle choices. She also regularly holds Wiccan baby-roasting rituals where she notes how regularly she like all minorities votes lockstep against any white christian males regardless of the veracity of the case.
Now, go, chase the bouncing ball.
Slam. Click. Latch.
Anyone have a Guinness?
chopper
jesus, kyle, you’re a total fuckbag.
MinneapolisPipe
Shorter Sullivan: The Lincoln Squirrel has been shot!!!! We’ll stay up all night if we have to!!
fucen tarmal
wait, what if as a lesbian, the boobs on the justice statue distract her attention from the cases being argued before the court?
it could happen. seriously, after the the sotomayor show, would this even be that much further out of line, logically speaking?
chopper
@Cerberus:
this, a thousand times this.
Cerberus
@tim:
Oh you disagree?
Which one of us is the female queer person?
Which one of us actually understood the point of what Harvey Milk was saying? Furthermore which one of us is well acquainted with how every opinionated woman on the planet is accused of being a dyke as a silencing and deliberate dehumanizing mechanism? And which one of us can grasp the simple dehumanization of treating people as political artifacts first and actual people second?
And on the other hand, which one of us is a sexist pile of shit who decided to make a reference to sexual violence in responding to me?
Yeah.
Fuck it, she’s quadsexual, chase the goddamn bouncing ball you overgrown culture plate.
grandpajohn
I suspect that having your respect is one of the many things she will not lose sleep over
Joseph Nobles
@Cerberus: Thank you.
Irony Abounds
@tim: Here is a quote from Sully, which I think sums up the real reason he has his undies in a knot and most likely why you and Kyle are equally troubled:
Y’all want your lesbian superhero, conquering admitted bigotry against gays and lesbian. Maybe it would move the gay-lesbian football closer to the goal line of full equality to have a known lesbian on the Supreme Court, but big fucking deal. It’s Kagan’s business, and hers alone, period. It has nothing to do with her qualifications as a Supreme Court justice.
Emma
Cerberus: As a straight woman (not that there’s anything wrong with that :) ) who has been accused on occasion, and as the friend of lesbians who are on the receiving end of this crap all the time…. APPLAUSE!
Cerberus
@Joseph Nobles:
No problem. It cheezed me off too.
@Emma:
Aw, thanks.
@Irony Abounds:
No, they are sexist douchebags. The actual queer community is pretty much of the opinion of “an out gay supreme court member would be pretty cool, but hey, if Kagan ain’t it, Kagan ain’t it, no harm, no foul”.
It’s only the professional panty-sniffer brigade who are treating it like Custer’s Last Stand.
Okay, I think I’m going to wind down and get some sleep cause it’s late here and I’ve got a long day working on my thesis defense presentation tomorrow.
tim
@Cerberus:
Um, I’m a MALE queer person, so get over yourself, and get to work with the bat. BTW, I’m unclear on why you would assume my earlier reference to the bat equates with violence. Some people enjoy large objects being placed inside thems. Sometimes I’m one of them. ;)
For some reason you think screaming “I’m a dyke!” “I’m a dyke!” gives you some special cred here. For all I know you’re a 65 year old straight man jerking off in Ames, Iowa.
Take your power-Lez act somewhere else. It lends you no authority.
toujoursdan
@Cerberus:
Exactly.
@Irony Abounds:
This too.
I’m gay and I think that it’s her business, not mine. I trust that she is smart, capable and has made whatever decision she made for a good reason. Being gay is about making our own life decisions and choosing to define ourselves to whom we want and when we want, not allowing others to attach labels on us under penalty of moral judgment.
If she wants to make her personal life public, that is her choice. If she doesn’t, that’s her choice too.
I have to agree with Cerebus, there is an underlying sexism here.
tim
@Cerberus:
Yeah, no problem, I’m going to have a cigarette, wind down, put my feet up now that my work is done here.
The gay community, and I know everyone in it and keep a daily running tally on what the, you know, overall “vibe” is, thinks that Cerebellum is you know, way wrong and stuff, and we’re all like, she’s such a self hater, and it cheeses me off, but ya know…I gotta get to work on my presentation tomorrow to the Council on Foreign Relations and then there’s lunch with important gay community people, cause ya know we’re all in the know and on the up and up with what’s down and what not.
Oh, and anyone who disagrees with me is a fuck and a pile of shit cause I have moral authority because I’m like, a gay MALE. ya know, with a penis and all so listen to me.
LD50
@tim: “Don’t you dykes know I’m just trying to HELP you?” Jesus.
LD50
@tim:
Not real likely. Clink the link on Cerberus’s name.
gwangung
@tim: And you think YOU speak with authority?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Please. Go on. Amuse us with your self important twaddle.
tim
@gwangung:
where did I say I “speak with authority?”
I’ve just been expressing my opinion on the Kagan matter, and certain commenters almost immediately become abusive and insulting and hostile.
However, Cerexcretus keeps yelling that she’s a GAY WOMAN apparently as a bid for instant cred. Doesn’t work that way.
tim
@gwangung:
Also: you refer to “us.” As in “amuse us with your self important twaddle?”
who is “us,” exactly?
Hob
@tim:
Cerberus sounded angry, I’ll give you that, but what the fuck? Arrogant? Psycho? She gave WAY more explanation for her position than you have in your screeds. You didn’t respond to any of it at all except the “fuck you” part.
And you can’t really be so confused about why she mentioned being a lesbian, can you? When you make all these unequivocal pronouncements on what queer people must do and what’s “not acceptable”, that’s a pretty clear sign that anyone with relevant life experience, especially activists, had better show you their credentials before daring to disagree with you. Over on another thread, an even bigger asshole than you is going around saying that literally all disagreement with him is from straight people. You didn’t do that, and you didn’t claim to speak for all gay people either, but neither did Cerberus– she just told you why your position is really thoughtless and harmful to her and all the people she knows.
I’d really love to know how your absolutism works for you in your regular life. If you know other people who are out to all their friends and colleagues to the same degree that you say Kagan is, do you go around calling them names if they don’t choose to also actively out themselves to the entire United States of America, and telling everyone else to go fuck themselves with baseball bats if they don’t think this is really helpful to the cause?
Hob
By the way, should Harvey Milk also have gone and fucked himself? Because he only asked people to come out– he didn’t hunt down every public figure he could find, regardless of whether they’d ever made any anti-gay statements, and publicize everything he thought he knew about them, and call them hypocrites if they didn’t comply.
OK, looking back, I think it’s time to update the pie filter. I think Tim came here to fight. The very first thing he posted here, besides “What Kyle said,” was a combative response to something that was clearly directed to someone else; that’s really not a good sign.
tim
@Hob:
I”ve been posting here for at least two years. Filter yourself.
Who have I “hunted down?” Your allusions to Harvey Milk are way out there; do you have a Ouija Board? My OPINION is that HM would have little regard for a lesbian in 2010 who wants to be on the supreme court of the united states of america, but can’t handle openly acknowledging her whole self and her partner. In fact, I’m pretty sure HM would say Elena Kagan is a coward and a gay Uncle Tom.
Turbulence
tim,
You seem to believe that if a gay individual wants to keep their sexual orientation private, they must necessarily be ashamed of it. This is complete garbage. There are many other reasons to keep one’s orientation private besides shame or self-hatred. For example, they might believe that straight people are fucked up shitheads who will damage their person or career if the truth is known. That judgment reflects shame, but shame about straight people, not gays. Frankly, that judgment seems pretty rational to me, a straight guy.
This is the root of your problem: you’re projecting your feelings onto people and make false inferences as a result. Also, you’re a dick.
Turbulence
tim,
You seem to believe that if a gay individual wants to keep their sexual orientation private, they must necessarily be ashamed of it. This is complete garbage. There are many other reasons to keep one’s orientation private besides shame or self-hatred. For example, they might believe that straight people are fucked up shitheads who will damage their person or career if the truth is known. That judgment reflects shame, but shame about straight people, not gays. Frankly, that judgment seems pretty rational to me, a straight guy.
This is the root of your problem: you’re projecting your feelings onto people and make false inferences as a result. Also, you’re a dick.
Emma
In fact, I’m pretty sure HM would say Elena Kagan is a coward and a gay Uncle Tom.
What??????
tim
@Emma:
Emma, the difference is that unlike HM, Kagan IS NOT acknowledging openly that she is gay.
How can the general public read about her being “just a gay supreme court justice doing her job” if she doesn’t acknowledge her gayness?
I am pretty sure HM acknowledged openly and publicly that he was gay.
tim
@Turbulence:
So the gay person accepts and embraces the mantle of shame as a way of life? You think that is an honorable way to live in 2010? You think in the vast majority of cases those straight people from whom the gay person thinks they are hiding don’t already have a good idea of the real score? You’re kidding yourself.
How is what you are suggesting differrent from a person of color who can “pass” as white, doing so to get by more easily and more profitably in society? Would you endorse that as a way of life? Would you think that is anhonorable, self-respecting way to live? What if that person acknowledged only his or her white relatives and kept pictures of their black kin in the closet, out of sight, so as not to risk jepoardizing their career? Would you be ok with that? Would you assess that person to be emotionally healthy and well balanced?
Little Boots
Well, THAT was annoying. This was getting to be a good discussion til the bitter (not that I’m exactly gandhi).
Little Boots
Here’s the thing, and I do sympathize with those who find questions about sexuality obnoxious and intrusive, but:
For a long time, it seems, we have been perfectly willing to peer into people’s private lives, their marriages, their affairs, their embarrassing mistakes, their stupid comments, but suddenly when it comes to the possibility of being gay, every respectable outlet is supposed to clam up and plead ignorance. Why? What does that say about our society? That’s what bugs some of us.
colby
@tim:
The Quija Board line woulda been funnier if you didn’t immediately after it pretend YOU have any idea what a dead man thinks about events occurring nearly 30 years after his death.
Little Boots
Anyone remember the Clarence Thomas hearings? I do. There was quite a lot of discussion of sexual orientation, however indirect.
Little Boots
Oh, you goobers can’t all have fallen asleep so suddenly.
Little Boots
Or maybe you have.
So in conclusion, resolved. Ms. Kagan should come out of the closet forthwith! Ayes?
AYE!!!
Nays?
The Ayes have it. So let it be written, so let it be done!
colby
“So the gay person accepts and embraces the mantle of shame as a way of life?”
No, they just refuse to let their sexuality define them.
“You think that is an honorable way to live in 2010?”
I don’t know or care. This isn’t the Klingon High Council, my definition of “honor” has nothing to do with the job. Neither does yours.
“You think in the vast majority of cases those straight people from whom the gay person thinks they are hiding don’t already have a good idea of the real score? You’re kidding yourself.”
Then what’s the problem? If they already “have a good idea of the real score”, then she doesn’t need to come out, anyway. We all knew Roberts and Alito were straight (OR DID WE?) so they didn’t have to say it.
This is the silliest part of your argument- you’re insisting that everyone already knows it’s true, but that she’s somehow still hiding it. It really can’t be both.
“How is what you are suggesting differrent from a person of color who can “pass” as white, doing so to get by more easily and more profitably in society?”
Well, first, it’s different because he listed this as one of several possible motivations; it might not be about that at all. But even if it is, is that really all that unusual? I’ve only known a couple light-skinned blacks, but they didn’t exactly wear t-shirts, I didn’t even know until I met their families.
“What if that person acknowledged only his or her white relatives and kept pictures of their black kin in the closet, out of sight, so as not to risk jepoardizing their career?”
What if they also put on a cape and patrolled the streets to fight crime? I mean, since we’re asking hypotheticals that have nothing to do with anything Kagan’s doing (or not doing)…
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@tim:
As someone who’s dealing with some discoveries about his ancestry in this regard, let me speak to this — and to my opinion on your opinions on this thread.
Being outed is not always a joyous occasion. I’m still reminded of the wonderful woman in college who took her life over her family’s reaction to being outed. Of my Academic team coach, highly successful, lead a Nationally-winning team, yet forced out over his gender preference. And here, it’s being used as a threat, to “tell us the truth, or we’ll not support you!”
To assume, as Sully and you do, that being outed is “part of the cost of doing business” is the most obnoxious, disturbing, and radical ideal I can imagine. If there is a right to privacy, especially around one’s sexual practices, it is only to be breached in the most intense of circumstances, and nothing in Kagan’s record indicates such a need.
Indeed, I daresay that to deliberately out people, simply to move your own political/personal sense of “justice”, does directly and powerfully parallel how White citizens, esp. in the heights of the Civil Rights era, sought out “one drop” citizens who were hiding their true roots.
I support the act on the part of African-Americans who hid, except when they used that status to inflame passions against their fellow Negroes of the era. I think you’ll find that other African-Americans aware of that era generally feel much the same. Certainly, my family tree has many hues, including some very pale ones, that could easy pass for “white” — and very likely did. Yet they are treated, so far as I’ve ever seen, as part of the family. People understand, to this day, what it took to survive in a hostile enviroment — and it is, last I checked, still very hostile for Homosexuals in many areas of this country.
The parallels are far from exact, and in truth I’m always uncomfortable comparing injustices in such a manner. Yet since you brought it up, and I’m been highly disturbed by this race to insist “outing” her is so critical, I thought I’d make my experiences and opinions plain.
In short: Your comparison is incorrect in terms of the reality, so far as I understand it, of being Homosexual in America today. And it also demeans the history, and ignores the reasoning behind, African-Americans who did, and still do, pass as “White”.
Little Boots
Colby, it does define us in a few distinct ways. We can pretend it doesn’t, but it has a really big impact. Don’t let’s dance around that fact.
And yeah, it’s annoying the whole kibuki dance of, yes, no, maybe, you may know, but I don’t choose to say one way or the other. Just call yourself a dyke, bitch, and have done with the bullshit. Sorry, but it really does get tired.
Turbulence
@tim:
So the gay person accepts and embraces the mantle of shame as a way of life?
Again, you are projecting your own emotions rather than rationally assessing the situation. If a gay person believes that the straights in their life will do them harm, then there is no shame in keeping that aspect of their life private. There is no “embracing” either; this is a purely tactical decision. The only shame they might feel would be for how much straight people suck.
You think that is an honorable way to live in 2010?
If a gay individual thinks this is best for them, then yeah, I think it is honorable. I also think it is none of my damn business. I don’t know what challenges gays around the country face: I don’t know what their family or workplaces are like. I don’t know what consequences they would suffer if they openly admitted to being gay. So I can’t judge their decision. Because I don’t know. And because even if I do think they’re making the wrong call, they’re the ones who would suffer not me.
This bit of empathy is something that the other commenters here understand intuitively. It is so obvious that they don’t feel the need to explain it. Your failure to appreciate this is…kind of creepy.
You think in the vast majority of cases those straight people from whom the gay person thinks they are hiding don’t already have a good idea of the real score?
In some cases yes, in others no. Even if you can’t keep a secret from your closest friends and family, that does not mean that you can’t keep your orientation secret from coworkers evaluating your job performance that you only vaguely know. I think there are a lot of hard working straight women who everyone believes are lesbians because people are stupid. A lot of the “real score” that people know is bullshit.
How is what you are suggesting differrent from a person of color who can “pass” as white, doing so to get by more easily and more profitably in society? Would you endorse that as a way of life? Would you think that is anhonorable, self-respecting way to live? What if that person acknowledged only his or her white relatives and kept pictures of their black kin in the closet, out of sight, so as not to risk jepoardizing their career? Would you be ok with that? Would you assess that person to be emotionally healthy and well balanced?
Um…ok. You obviously have never discussed race in a serious way. Let me clue you in: there are many POC who can pass for white. Their benefiting from white privilege may or may not be intentional. But I don’t think it is unethical. Especially in the common case, when it is not intentional. I know many POC who can pass for white and I’ve never heard of any of them “hiding” their darker skinned relatives, but if it did happen, I’d trust them to make their own decision. They might be overreacting to racism that isn’t there, but it is their life and career on the line, not mine, so I’m happy with whatever they decide. It really is none of my business.
Now, it would suck that anyone feels they have to do that. But that doesn’t mean they’ve violated some ethical norm.
But this has fuck-all to do with Kagan since we have no reason to believe that she’s a lesbian. I’m not interested in rumors; any hard working unmarried woman over 40, no matter how straight they are, is going to have people claiming that she’s a lesbian. So the rumors mean nothing.
Little Boots
And you honestly have no reaction to that Turbulence. You’re honestly okay, completely, with people lying about their race or their religion or their sexuality because that might help them gain some privilege in this world? That truly has never bothered you in any way?
Little Boots
And, sorry, it’s just a bit dishonest to say we have “no reason” to think she’s lesbian. The kabuki dance alone gives some reason.
Little Boots
Is anyone else finding this site fucking annoying tonight, in terms of posting?
Turbulence
And you honestly have no reaction to that Turbulence. You’re honestly okay, completely, with people lying about their race or their religion or their sexuality because that might help them gain some privilege in this world? That truly has never bothered you in any way?
Um, yeah, actually. I’m not entitled to know about my coworkers religion or race or sexual orientation. If they feel that in order to make it through this fucked up society, they need to hide or even lie about it, I’ve got no problem with that. Because I’m not entitled to know about private parts of their lives. I have no business asking.
Why on earth would this be a problem for you? Do you seriously ask everyone you know to explain their sexuality, ethnicity and religion in detail? Do you get enraged when you notice inconsistencies later on?
Mayken
@Brachiator: Applauds!
Thanks. She’s an unmarried Jewish woman who has spent decades living in a Christian-centric society and working in a male-dominated profession. As a person in a similar situation (non-Christian female in Information Technology and bi-racial to boot) I know just how old it gets having to represent “people like me” every g-damn day and I’m not a public figure! It is hard and it gets frackin’ tiring. So despite my personal opinion that it would be cool if she was and came out, I will not ever cast aspersions on someone who doesn’t want to walk that path.
Some things are private, no matter how public a figure you are.
Turbulence
@Little Boots: And, sorry, it’s just a bit dishonest to say we have “no reason” to think she’s lesbian. The kabuki dance alone gives some reason.
What kabuki dance? The only dance that I can see is that a bunch of idiots (like Sully) noticed that she’s an older unmarried woman and immediately concluded that she’s a lesbian. Because those idiots have a big audience, they set the agenda. But there’s nothing real to this story. There is zero evidence: no pictures, no names, not a single person willing to go on record saying “yeah, I know for a fact that she’s a lesbian because I’ve seen her wife” under their own name.
I’ve seen astrologers and homeopaths that can muster more evidence for their respective quakeries than you have. Put up or shut up: present evidence or admit that we have no reason to believe that she’s a lesbian.
colby
“Colby, it does define us in a few distinct ways.”
Right, but the nuance of “in a few distinct ways” would be utterly lost in many parts of our culture, and I rather suspect the 24 hour news networks would be leading that parade.
The bottom line is, homosexuality isn’t all of what Elena Kagan or anyone else is, but with our culture being what it is, a belief that it would be the sole characteristic assigned to her is very real. And I can’t imagine anyone wants that (I certainly don’t wanna be known as “That Guy That Likes Chicks”, or to have to speak for all Breeders, or…shudder…answer for them all). So I don’t begrudge her keeping her mouth shut, no matter how much it tires you.
Little Boots
Not entitled, maybe, but it would be weird, and I suspect a bit suspect if you found out somebody had lied to you about their race or religion. It really is this one area where everyone is supposed to just accept, always, that people should lie about it.
And no, I don’t ask anyone about any of those things, but I would still find it very odd if somebody posing as a Christian every day turned out to be Jewish. I wouldn’t find it odd if somebody gay posed as straight, because of our, as you say, fucked up society deciding that that’s how it should be. That’s what bothers a lot of us.
Little Boots
You travel in interesting circles Turbulence, and I’m glad you’ve found astrologers and homeopaths to conjure evidence for you. Did you read the Sullivan pieces? He starts by talking about a NYT profile that skirts every possible mention of a private life, because nobody wants to get into the gay. And I believe Tim when he says it’s an open secret in Boston. Hey did you know Anderson Cooper has a boyfriend? What, he didn’t announce it on his show? It must not be true then.
And the White House position at this point is, no, we don’t talk about anything so disreputable as the possibility that she’s a dyke. That’s the kabuki.
colby
“You’re honestly okay, completely, with people lying about their race or their religion or their sexuality because that might help them gain some privilege in this world?”
We’re not talking about anyone lying about it, just not bringing it up. And there might be a million reasons why they do that, from it just slipping their mind ’cause they honestly think it’s the irrelevant or from resenting that it might even matter to someone. All of which is a rational response that I wouldn’t shit on anyone for.
Svensker
@DonkeyKong:
I love that comment.
Little Boots
And Colby, black is not everything that Obama is, but it would be really odd and disturbing if his answer to every mention of his black father was: I refuse to dignify that rumor. That’s what is annoying.
Emma
Tim: But that I know of, HM never outed anyone against their will, nor advocated that it be done. IF Kagan had spent her life advocating anti-gay positions, I would personally out her if I could, because, you know, it’s not teh ghey, it’s the hypocrisy. OR if she were like Cheney’s daughter, who has always been in some way employed in the “outreach to gays” but who hides herself from the eyes of her father’s nastiest supporters under cover of “privacy,” yes, I wold think it’s worth discussing.
But Kagan has lived her personal life in privacy and has, as far as I can tell, a supporter of equal treatment for gays, so, her personal life is her personal life.
(BTW, half my message is missing? oh well)
Little Boots
And there might be a million reasons why they do that, from it just slipping their mind ‘cause they honestly think it’s the irrelevant or from resenting that it might even matter to someone.
Seriously? This is a blog, not a courtroom, we can actually be fairly honest here.
Turbulence
@Little Boots: I live in Cambridge MA. You know, the town where Harvard is located. It is not an open secret. No one I know has heard any of this bullshit.
Look, do you actually know any over 40 never-married high achieving women? If you do, maybe you should ask them about how easily everyone just assumes that they’re lesbians.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
I am stealing this word. Don’t exactly know what it means, but I want it.
Hob
OK, Tim, I’m sorry I mistook you for some new drive-by ragehead. I’ve been here a few years too, but it’s a little harder to tell that someone is the same person when they just sign themselves “tim”… and when their previous comments haven’t involved telling everyone to fuck themselves and saying that the rest of the commenters are just groupthinking asskissers, etc.
Comment 122 in particular was good for two or three squares on troll bingo. You got another square from this: “I’ve just been expressing my opinion on the Kagan matter, and certain commenters almost immediately become abusive and insulting and hostile.” That’s hilarious. First, until Cerberus (and I’m not saying she was out of line either), everyone on this very thread responded to you with no abuse at all, unless you count Zifnab’s “look like a complete tool” remark. You even had people politely trying to argue with you after you started on about how much you hate all the groupthinking idiots here. And you still haven’t bothered to address any of the things anyone said, except to return a few “fuck you”s. This all makes you sound, frankly, kind of nuts, and I would say so even if you were arguing in favor of the sky being blue.
Second, “just expressing your opinion”?? Expressing your opinion would be something like “Public figures ought to be open about their sexuality”– or even “I don’t think it’s wrong to spread rumors and try to out someone if they’re not open about it.” If you say “Elena Kagan is a lesbian, everyone knows it, ask around if you don’t believe me,” that’s not “expressing your opinion about” outing and spreading rumors; it’s fucking DOING it. You are, here on this blog and God knows where else, actively spreading rumors about Elena Kagan and trying to out her, in a way that may or may not correspond with reality but certainly seems to be against her wishes. And, you know, that tends to make people mad. It’s not a fucking opinion.
As for Harvey Milk, no Ouija board is required. If you can find any example of him saying anything like that about anyone at all who hadn’t directly outright slandered gay people, I’d be really interested to see it. What he did say about coming out is very well known: he asked people to do it on their own behalf, because it would increase the understanding of people who knew them— not to impress a bunch of strangers, or to satisfy the self-appointed ideological police.
Little Boots
Then, I might ask them how easy it is to say, no, I’m straight. Actually, I do know a couple. It’s fairly easy. Has Kagan ever just said, no, I’m not?
Turbulence
Not entitled, maybe, but it would be weird, and I suspect a bit suspect if you found out somebody had lied to you about their race or religion.
Not really. I once worked at a company that had a lot of Jews. I mean, a lot of Jews, including the top management. They were all cool, but a few of them had nutty hyper zionist political beliefs (i.e., we need to go exterminate some Iranian/Palestinians/Iraqis/RandomArabs before they exterminate us). Now, in my experience, some people who hold those beliefs also harbor anti-Islamic prejudice. In that environment, if I was Muslim, I probably would have pretended to be a boring Christian — maybe a methodist or a unitarian or episcopalian. Even if I knew that most people were cool, I’d figure ‘why take the chance?’ Giving people the wrong impression may not cost me much, especially if I’m not a serious practicing Muslim.
It really is this one area where everyone is supposed to just accept, always, that people should lie about it.
I know a few people who have open marriages. Some of them are quite wary with sharing that information. In general, I think most people are pretty quiet about sharing information about their sexuality with coworkers.
And no, I don’t ask anyone about any of those things, but I would still find it very odd if somebody posing as a Christian every day turned out to be Jewish.
What if they’re not posing at all? What if they just refrain from discussing religion at the office and occasionally say bland generalities about the christmas tree. You would then assume they were christian. Right? Why would it be strange if it turned out that your assumptions were wrong? Aren’t you used to that?
I wouldn’t find it odd if somebody gay posed as straight, because of our, as you say, fucked up society deciding that that’s how it should be. That’s what bothers a lot of us.
So then what’s the problem? Either Kagan is a lesbian or she’s not. If she is, then you agree it is perfectly rational to keep that information private. If she’s not, then there’s nothing to talk about at all.
Brachiator
@tim:
So now we see what a hateful coward you are. Let’s take your example. Let’s say that a person who is passing for white works for a racist organization, lives in a racist community, has racist in-laws and even a racist spouse, makes good money, raises a family, and is otherwise kind, charitable, helpful, donates secretly to all kinds of worthy causes.
And then along comes little Tim on his horse of self-righteousness and looks over the scene, and like an insane deity, says, “I know you from your past. And I, Tim Almighty, have decided that you are obviously not emotionally healthy and well-balanced. So I will out you. So what if you lose your job, your family. Your life has meaning only if you live it the way I say you should live it.”
Your position has been consistent throughout this thread. You clearly think that all gay people who are in the public eye are subject to a mandatory “Must Ask, Must Tell” policy and that anyone who you know or suspect is gay must either reveal themselves or be disqualified being able to live their lives as they want.
Bigotry in the name of a “higher” cause.
Emma
Little Boots: I don’t know if she’s said it. Neither do you. She has a wide circle of friends, acquaintances, and professional colleagues. Who knows?
The thing is, you can’t demand she say it to you. You have no right to. Unless and if you’re claiming that a closeted gay person is unable to do his or her job properly, you have no right to the information.
Me, I’m working my way through her paper on presidential administration (heavy slogging for a non-lawyer, but not impossible). I want to get to know what she thinks about the First Amendment (I’m told those three papers are really technical). I want to know what she thinks of Roe v. Wade. A number of things like that.
To be vulgar, I have no interest in who she rubs against when she’s at home. Male or female. Or maybe she has no interest in sex at all and prefers a good book and a glass of wine instead of a good lay. Not. My. Business.
Little Boots
The problem is societal, Turbulence. The problem is that we are always supposed to accept that this is the one area that people are supposed to be dishonest about, because of, you know, all those homophobes out there who are, well kind of right, that people should shut up about their sexual orientation. It is the logic of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
There is nothing that is not explored in a major political race, except this one thing. Imagine if nobody was allowed to talk about John Ensign’s adultery or Bill CLinton’s because it Just Isn’t Done. Now compare to Charlie Crist’s gayness (and yes, let’s not be children here. The guy is gay.)
I think you raise good points about the workplace. But let’s take the constant rumors of Obama being a Muslim. Bullshit, but let’s assume. Would it be illegitimate for some news organization to show that, yet, Obama is in fact a Muslim posing as a Christian? Would it be different if he were a gay man posing as a straight man?
colby
“He starts by talking about a NYT profile that skirts every possible mention of a private life, because nobody wants to get into the gay.”
And you’re absolutely sure that’s why they did it? There’s absolutely no chance the reporter didn’t find anything interesting in her private life, or didn’t have the space for it, or thought it was irrelevant, or was too lazy to actually dig into it? C’mon, modern media being what it is, you should always bet on lazy.
“And I believe Tim when he says it’s an open secret in Boston.”
Okay, but why should I? I don’t know Tim from Adam, and neither my aunt who lives in Boston, nor my colleague who was at Harvard while Kagan was, has heard these rumors.
“And the White House position at this point is, no, we don’t talk about anything so disreputable as the possibility that she’s a dyke. That’s the kabuki.”
Well first, let’s be clear: that’s not Kabuki. Kabuki is when the outcome is already determined, and you’re just going through the motions, acting like it’s a big deal (Kagan’s nomination process is Kabuki). But the thing is, the WH refusing to comment on whether or not Kagan’s gay ISN’T evidence that she’s gay, it is, by definiton, an absence of evidence. The only way that could be taken as a kubuki act with any certitude is if you start with the assumption that she’s gay, but you’re saying that this proves that very assumption. It’s a circular argument.
colby
@Little Boots:
I am being so, and the fact that you have nothing left but to accuse me of being a liar really makes your argument look paper thin.
Little Boots
Emma, I don’t deny those are more serious issues, and there are more serious issues than sexual orientation. What bothers me is the untouchable nature of it. She doesn’t have to say anything to me. Neither does Tiger Woods. I seriously don’t give a shit if he slept with every skank west of the Mississippi. But it does annoy me that this is some open for discussion, gossipy thing, but if he’d slept with a guy then we’d all have to have a seminar about whether it was okay to discuss that openly in the press.
Kagan’s a more serious figure, obviously, but it is the same principal. Why are some personal things okay to discuss, actually most personal things, but not this one terrible thing: teh gay.
Little Boots
I wasn’t seriously accusing you of being a liar, colby. Come on. I was being a little harsh about a comment, but I don’t think you’re being dishonest. But you don’t seriously think it may have slipped her mind that she’s a lesbian, do you?
Mayken
@tim: Lack of courage? Sweet jeebus on a pogo stick, the woman is the frackin’ Dean of the Harvard law school, enforced the limits on military recruiting on her campus, took the friggin’ federal government to the friggin’ Supreme Effin’ Court over said ban, has worked in academia and a male dominated, Christian-centered world for decades. And for the Clinton administration. And you’re saying she lacks courage?! Seriously?!
A line from Shakespeare in Love comes to mind “I know something of a woman in a man’s profession. Yes, by G-d, I do know about that. ”
But I should just stop reading this thread right now before my head fuskin’ explodes.
colby
But teh gay IS okay to discuss; we’re doing it right now, and the fun police aren’t knocking on my door. Sully’s discussing it on the website of a major American political magazine. And if you think Fox and MSNBC aren’t going to mention it soon, you’re kidding yourself.
It’s just that Kagan and the WH aren’t talking about it. And they don’t have to. It’s got nothing to do with how she’d judge, and even YOU admit you don’t care. So honestly, they needn’t even bother.
Little Boots
I didn’t admit I don’t care. And I do think it might, in some particular ways and cases, influence how she’d judge. I really dislike this idea that everyone vying for any office is an automotan devoid of any background or emotions. That only THE JOB matters, never the person doing it. Actually, I want some people on the Court who are shaped in ways other than Alito or Roberts have been shaped.
tim
It’s weird to read all these commenters on this relatively non-conservative blog argue, in 2010 no less, in FAVOR of the closet as a way of life.
With friends like these…
Emma
Little Boots: we’re talking about it to the tune of over 190 entries. It’s just that Kagan isn’t. If someone asks her directly, she might or might not or might tell them to frek off. But it’s her prerogative, not ours.
And Tim, I now know you’re an agent provocateur. Nobody is arguing in favor of the closet AND YOU KNOW IT. We’re simply arguing that it is up to the individual to choose how/when/if they come out. And that that choice should never be taken into consideration when looking at whether they can or cannot do their jobs.
James in WA
This entire thread is surreal. Seriously, american politics are beyond fucked up.
Little Boots
well, yeah, James, but in what particular way tonight. And if you want screwed up, check out the recent British election.
Turbulence
@Little Boots: What bothers me is the untouchable nature of it. She doesn’t have to say anything to me. Neither does Tiger Woods…but if he’d slept with a guy then we’d all have to have a seminar about whether it was okay to discuss that openly in the press.
This seems…insane. If Tiger Woods cheated on his spouse with a guy, it would be all over the news.
I actually don’t think adultery is any of my business. If my dentist or my accountant or my boss or my president was cheating on their spouse, it would be none of my business. It is an issue between them and their spouse, i.e., not me. I don’t want to know and I somehow find out, I’m going to pretend I don’t know. I know many people believe that infidelity is proof positive that an individual is fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy, but I think that’s bullshit. People compartmentalize up the wazoo. And in some cases, the other spouse is on it but that’s not something you can ever admit publicly.
The only case I might be interested is obvious hypocrisy, i.e., republican trolls hounding Clinton for doing a pale imitation of what they’ve done. Since Kagan isn’t a hateful anti-gay bigot, that does not apply.
colby
@Little Boots:
I wasn’t talking about Kagan, I was talking about a general class of “people lying about their race or their religion or their sexuality”. That should be pretty clear as I, y’know, QUOTED that very phrase and responded directly to it. Nor did I say it was the only explanation of why the might not bring up those facts; it was one of two examples, with the explicit expression that there might be 9,999,998 more.
That being said, while I doubt a black guy, a Muslim, and a lesbian every forget who they are (or walk into a bar…) I can certainly see them not thinking it needed to be said to a prospective employer, or forgetting that the employer may (mistakenly) find the fact relevant.
Kagan is probably a bit different, as she’s certainly savvy enough to know that, if she is a lesbian, that’d be a big deal in her getting her new gig. But I can still see her thinking that it is so irrelevant to actually DOING the job that mentioning it is so far down on her list of priorities as to get lost in the shuffle, or that she resents it being an issue so she doesn’t bring it up, or that she wants to be judged on other criteria, or that she just doesn’t care one way or the other, or, yeah, a million other things.
Little Boots
Yes, I know WE”RE talking about it, we can talk about the imminent Klingon invasion or anything else. Who cares? What I’m saying when it can’t be discussed is it cannot be discussed in serious, polite, media company. A while back, Charlie Crist got married, and there was real snickering about that on hardball, it was an insider’s, funny, mocking moment. But I bet nobody on hardball or meet the press or this week would ever, ever, ever mention the fact that Charlie Crist is a gay man posing a straight man, or in any way try to explore how his gayness might shape his views of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or Same Sex Marriage if he got into the Senate. That’s what I’m talking about.
And the same for Kagan. It can’t even be raised on any national show, probably not even Rachel Maddow’s, but it would be interesting if I’m wrong about that.
Little Boots
Is WordPress always such an annoying piece of shit?
Little Boots
I don’t believe that, Turbulence. I think there’d be a lot of agonizing about whether it was okay to out Tiger Woods as a homo. Outing him as an obsessive womanizer, no problem. But teh gay? Problem.
colby
“I didn’t admit I don’t care.”
Uh, fair enough, I guess; but if you do care, then analogizing her to Tiger Woods, whose sex life you go on to state you don’t care about, is an…interesting choice.
“I really dislike this idea that everyone vying for any office is an automotan devoid of any background or emotions. That only THE JOB matters, never the person doing it.”
Yeah, I hate that straw man, too!
C’mon. Obama has made life experience a big part of his SCOTUS criteria, and the WH hasn’t shyed away from mentioning her teacher mom, her public schooling, her time in academia, her relations with the staff at Harvard, her self-proclaimed mentor, Thurgood Marshall and on and on and on. To say nothing of the fact that the major selling point on Kagan is that she has the interpersonal skills to bridge the Court’s gaps, and personally appeal to Justice Kennedy. They’ve put the person, her background, and her emotions front and center in this rollout.
Little Boots
And that really is it, colby, the fact that every life experience, except, omg, being a lesbian matters. That is what seems so off, so often.
Mayken
@Little Boots: “We” who? I for one could do without hearing about anyone else’s sexual proclivities for the rest of my life and not feel the least bit deprived. With the very limited exceptions of criminals sexual behavior and anti-LGTB crusaders getting outed, I really couldn’t give a $hit and I know a lot of people feel the same way.
So I fail to see why a bunch of stating this should bug anybody….
James in WA
@Little Boots: In no particularly outstanding way tonight, it’s just that there are times when one steps back and sees it again. The fact that we care about sexual matters with regard to politics has always and continues to creep me out. I feel the same way as I do when I see hapless american tourists gawking at europeans sunning themselves in a park in various states of undress — I mean, really, what is our fucked up obsession with private lives, sex, and naked bodies?
And I’ve been following the British election results, seeing as how my sister lives in England, and I’m not certain that I’d call it fucked up. Just the parliamentary system at work, or so it seems, and working fairly well. Okay, maybe you’re right, it is kinda fucked up, if the rumor I heard that there will be no Scottish MP’s is right. But then again, the English have always pretty much screwed everyone else in the UK.
Mayken
@Little Boots: No, there was a lot of talk about sexual misconduct. That is VERY different.
colby
No, Turbulence is right, if Tiger Woods was caught with a guy, they’d create a new cable network to talk about that shit 24/7. C’mon, there was no real agonizing over Larry Craig, Ted Haggerd, or the new guy, what’s-his-name, caught “renting” a boy.
And if there was any such agonizing, it would probably be from crunchy granola liberals like me saying if the guy didn’t want to come out, we shouldn’t have forced him. But no one would listen to me, and we’d be having a big ol’ party about it.
Little Boots
Sure, Mayken, I believe you. And I could do without knowing if Clarence Thomas ever put a pubic hair on a can of coke. But compare the treatment of that very intimate, disgusting moment to the completely not intimate, not disgusting possibility that Kagan might be a lesbian. What I (and tim? maybe, although he can speak for himself) am saying is that the media is perfectly happy to delve into private, sexual matters, as long as their private heterosexual matters, and that is a double standard that says something about our society that I wish weren’t true. The implication is that gayness in and of itself is too taboo to ever discuss, at least in the context of any individual gay person.
TenguPhule
He’s a british cocksucker. That’s all you need to know about Sullivan.
Turbulence
I don’t believe that, Turbulence. I think there’d be a lot of agonizing about whether it was okay to out Tiger Woods as a homo. Outing him as an obsessive womanizer, no problem. But teh gay? Problem.
I don’t know anything about Tiger Woods, but is there actual credible evidence that’s gay? Not just ‘some guy somewhere claims he slept with Woods after Woods refused to pay $5million to shut him up’ but actual verifiable evidence?
You seem to be adopting this bizarre evidentiary standard whereby any accusation is presumed true provided it relates to an individual’s sex life.
@Little Boots: The problem is societal, Turbulence. The problem is that we are always supposed to accept that this is the one area that people are supposed to be dishonest about, because of, you know, all those homophobes out there who are, well kind of right, that people should shut up about their sexual orientation.
You are deliberately misstating my claims. I do not appreciate it.
I never said anyone has to do this. I said it is their individual decision and that I don’t have the right to question their judgment. Both because they know more than I and because they have to live with the consequences.
Admitting that homophobes exist and have power is not the same as believing they are correct. Positive claims are not normative!
There is nothing that is not explored in a major political race, except this one thing.
There is a self-selection issue that you are ignoring. In many parts of the country, homosexual candidates cannot win. Therefore, they do not run. It might be the case that this issue isn’t explored because the only people willing to run (or able to get enough funding to be viable candidates) are obvious heterosexuals.
Imagine if nobody was allowed to talk about John Ensign’s adultery or Bill CLinton’s because it Just Isn’t Done. Now compare to Charlie Crist’s gayness (and yes, let’s not be children here. The guy is gay.)
But people do talk about Crist being gay. His wikipedia article has half a dozen cites for claims that Crist is gay. NPR and the NYT are not fringe publications.
I think you raise good points about the workplace. But let’s take the constant rumors of Obama being a Muslim. Bullshit, but let’s assume. Would it be illegitimate for some news organization to show that, yet, Obama is in fact a Muslim posing as a Christian? Would it be different if he were a gay man posing as a straight man?
Kagan is not a politican. She is not running for office.
I think you’re going way off track putting sexual matters and religious matters on the same level. Religion tends to be something people do in public. Sex, not so much.
colby
“And that really is it, colby, the fact that every life experience, except, omg, being a lesbian matters. ”
That really is…what? A completely made up assertion? “Every life experience” doesn’t matter, and hasn’t mattered in this rollout. They haven’t mentioned that she was a smoker, her time in private practice, or her failed nomination in 1999. They didn’t play up her time in Oxford, or her connection to Obama from the U of C.
Of course, none of those seem very relevant to being a Supreme Court Justice. And that’s probably why the WH isn’t bringing them- along with other life experiences, if there are any- up in the rollout.
TenguPhule
Kindly fuck yourself and take WATB Sully with you.
It’s NONE of your or my fucking business as to what gender Kagan may or may not prefer. It has nothing to do with her ability to do the job, the whole fucking peeping tom thing by Sully is both stupid and shameful and based on nothing.
But lies run around the world while the truth gets its boots on.
I also hear speculation that Sully rapes little boys, maybe we can have a huge conference where he can deny it publically too?
Little Boots
Actually, your own example, Turbulence, was about people covering up the fact they were Muslim for fear of anti-Muslim sentiment. I suspect there are more than a few atheists in Congress who do exactly that. And no, I don’t think you are saying that people should lie about being gay, but you are accepting that as a societal rule in many situations. That has been the rule, but it really is starting to fray, partly because of the kind of discussion going on in this thread. I like that.
And again, I am talking about discussions outside the Internet. It’s a wonderful place, but everyone knows its a Wild West. What can be said on the Internet is …. Anything. What I’m talking about is what things are allowed in the so called (and sometimes with justification) respectable media. Have you ever heard anyone on national TV make the simple declarative statement that Charlie Crist is gay?
Hob
@Little Boots: If Kagan were openly lesbian, I’m absolutely sure we would be hearing about it. But if she’s really the least bit gay– and so far I haven’t seen one single thing that persuades me of this [and no, super-angry anonymous Internet characters who post rumors about what “everyone knows around Harvard”, and are then contradicted by an equal number of other people who live there, don’t count]– then she’s shown no interest in talking about it. Which really isn’t that uncommon, and isn’t at all the same thing as being closeted. And again, you have no reason at all to think that this is even the case. This is a hypothetical scenario that’s so far been proposed by you, “tim”, “Nate Dawg”, Andy Sullivan, and a well-known Republican smearmonger. To keep being “bothered” and saying how “weird” it is that you’re not seeing this hypothetical scenario reflected in the mass media is… well, weird.
(If Kagan comes out tomorrow, then you’ll have been right about one thing… but you still won’t have had any good reason to think it. You’ll be like people who were against invading Iraq only because they thought we should invade North Korea instead. And you’ll also find out that you’re wrong about the media’s supposed lack of interest in such things.)
You’re asking that the press, or the Senate, or at least someone higher up than Balloon Juice, treat any potentially interesting rumor about a person just as seriously as they would treat interesting personal information that was volunteered by that person. I don’t think you’ve thought this through.
tim
Little Boots, you are well spoken. Thank you for also questioning the seeming BJ conventional wisdom that the closet is a fine and dandy, even honorable place for a public person to live their life in 2010.
Though unfortunately a lot of what you say is going right over some heads here.
Little Boots
Colby, the fact that John Roberts has a couple of cute kids means even less than any of the things you’re talking about, but there it was, rolled out for us all to goo about. Yeah, sometimes things that aren’t directly relevant to THE JOB are used to make somebody seem more appealing. Imagine.
Little Boots
Thanks, Tim.
Mayken
@Little Boots: @Little Boots: The difference between the behavior Thomas was accused of and the speculation about Kagan’s orientation is that one is that one is a violation of the law and the other is NOT. So in the first case, I want to know whether he did or didn’t do what he was accused of. It was perfectly within bounds, however distasteful, to discuss it because we shouldn’t have people willing to commit crimes on the SCOTUS. Kagan’s sexual orientation is, however, NOT in bounds. It has no bearing on whether she is eligible to sit on the SCOTUS. Any more than Sotomayors race was. It’s a dog-whistle for hate, nothing more.
TenguPhule
Shorter Tim: We will fight the war on straw FOREVAH!!
colby
“the media is perfectly happy to delve into private, sexual matters, as long as their private heterosexual matters”
That just doesn’t hold with reality, though. Again, Larry Craig and Ted Haggerd got no shortage of coverage. The rumors about Crist are widely reported. So were the rumors about Mike Piazza. Hell, John Amaechi was no more than the 20th best center of his era (On his best day!) and ESPN still tripped over themselves to give round-the-clock coverage when he came out. And yes, even Kagan’s sexuality is being discussed, by no less than the former editor of an American progressive magazine that can trace it’s lineage to before the New Deal.
Little Boots
Honestly, Hob, a simple declarative from Kagan herself and Robert Gibbs that no, she is not gay, would suffice. And yes, maybe she’s not, which would make this whole thing surreal. But again, and again, and again, why is this the one illegitimate area of inquiry. Would it be innately offensive to ask if she’s really Jewish? If so, why?
LD50
@Little Boots:
So the fact that people DON’T talk about her sexuality now counts as proof she’s gay?
Wow.
tim
@TenguPhule:
It is VERY revealing that you equate Elena Kagan’s being gay with Andrew Sullivan’s alleged rape of young boys.
Whether you are able to see it in yourself or not, your comments reveal that you view gayness as a very negative quality, akin to horrendous crimes.
Other commenters have referred to rumors of her gayness as “smears” and “lies” and terms loaded with negative connotations. What I keep trying to say, though few here will listen, is that there is NOTHING bad about being gay. Hiding in the closet only reinforces and supports the idea that there IS something bad about it. You can’t “smear” someone with neutral or positive information.
Little Boots
Mayken, you don’t think Sotomayor’s race was a factor in her selection, or wasn’t discussed?
TenguPhule
“Even the Liberal New Republic!”
/I snark because the alternative is climbing up on a tower and cholrinating the human gene pool.
Little Boots
No, LD50, the fact that people CAN’T talk about her sexuality is indicative of a problem with society’s view of that sexuality.
tim
@Mayken:
Apparently, it is a “dog whistle for hate” to YOU. Certainly not to me.
I don’t allow far right wingers to set the parameters for me.
Little Boots
And yes, people can talk about it here. I get that.
Mayken
@Little Boots: No, I didn’t say that. I said it wasn’t a legitimate source of discussion. It shouldn’t have been discussed or asked about by sitting frackin’ Senators and the MSM hate parade was shameful. This is the same. If she is gay, do you really, really wonder why she doesn’t want to expose herself to that level of hate?
LD50
@tim:
Don’t be an idiot. We’re saying it’s up to the gay (?) person themselves to decide. You somehow think it’s YOUR business, not theirs, which is what we find bizarre.
de stijl
@tim:
You know what else is uncool in 2010? Lying about what people said about the closet.
Not misunderstanding, not mischaracterizing. Lying.
Let me be perfectly clear:
tim,
You are a liar.
colby
“Colby, the fact that John Roberts has a couple of cute kids means even less than any of the things you’re talking about, but there it was, rolled out for us all to goo about.”
Fascinating! Entirely irrelevant to what a DIFFERENT President is doing in the rollout of a DIFFERENT nominee five years later, but fascinating!
“Yeah, sometimes things that aren’t directly relevant to THE JOB are used to make somebody seem more appealing.”
And sometimes they aren’t, and in no case MUST they be used. So that assertion- while true!- really has no bearing on if Kagan is a lesbian, or if she or the White House should say she’s a lesbian assuming she is one.
TenguPhule
Raptor Jesus is crying right now you fallactic prick.
Ignoratio Elenchi, Kagan’s personal unstated preferences or lack there of is nobody else’s business. Do we have to label it Schroeder’s Pussy in order for you to get it?
Little Boots
Alas, I have to sleep. I’m actually liking this discussion, and all of you. For all my talk about restrictions on speech, none of that’s happening here, and I really am grateful to the Internet for that. Wish I could stay up all night, but I can’t. Good night.
TenguPhule
Fuck, I tripped the mod filter.
Mayken
@tim: It’s a dog-whistle to the right-wing base of the increasingly hateful Republican party. Calling her a lesbian simply based on her not conforming to their idea of femininity is an old, old, old tactic to try to keep women in their place. I grew up with this bullshit. I know it when I see it.
No, there is NOTHING wrong with being a lesbian in my view. I think the parts of our society who think there is is dead wrong. But they also run the world. So I guess I am not about to call anyone who already runs against this society’s view of what a Dean of Harvard should be like a coward because she fails to mention this one thing.
Look, I more or less expected by certain segments of the population to represent for every pagan, bi-racial female in the universe. I’m not in a particular hurry to add my sexual proclivities as another thing I need to represent to the world at large. I can totally understand why, if it is even true, Kagan wouldn’t want to go there.
You can poke at her all you like. It’s her choice not yours.
LD50
@Little Boots: And if everyone DID talk about her sexuality, this would somehow be proof that society was ‘healthier’?
colby
“Would it be innately offensive to ask if she’s really Jewish?”
Maybe. I find the “Obama’s not really Christian!” bullshit to be pretty terrible.
colby
I still see no compelling evidence that she IS gay, especially since her friends are now denying it (I won’t link to Politico to save my life). “People won’t admit that she’s a lesbian” is pretty lousy evidence that she’s a lesbian, and Tim…well, I want to believe, Tim, I really do. But I’ve been hurt too many times before.
Hob
@de stijl: Tim’s not necessarily lying. He might just be convinced that if someone disagrees with him about something, or doesn’t like him, then they must think the exact opposite of everything else that he thinks. It’s a pretty common condition. It’s like when mclaren shows up and says something totally insane, and people tell him “dude, you’re insane,” and then he figures that because he’s against police brutality, they must all be for it.
tim
Good night, all my new friends. Get some shut eye now!
Toodles!
Mayken
I think we should start speculating about who is really straight. “Everyone knows” Andrew Sullivan is really straight! Why won’t he “come out” as straight, dammit?
/snark
Brachiator
@tim:
The only thing you see is the closet. You don’t see people or the complexity of the lives that people lead, or the complexity of the decisions that they make about their own lives.
ChockFullO'Nuts
Well, I read this much of the thread: Three sentences, one outside the blockquote, and the first two inside.
In sentence one, I see that it’s Sullivan. Strike one.
In sentence two, I see that whatever that disgusting asshole is talking about, it’s pure speculation on his part. Strike two.
In sentence three, I see where he is going: He is positing that Kagan’s sexual orientation is somehow of great importance in the current churn over her nomination; Further, the intrigue over her sexuality will be a key to her confirmation in his view. A line of thought I consider to be about an inch short of being insane, to say nothing of insulting … to her, and to us. Strike three.
Sorry, I have better things to do than to indulge this kind of narcissistic navelgazing on the part of Sullivan. Fuck him and this entire conversation. Kagan gets confirmed because she will make a fine justice. End of story.
asiangrrlMN
@ChockFullO’Nuts: Damn. I wish you had posted this up near the top and then we had closed the thread.
@Mayken: I completely agree with you. It’s HER choice. Whether she is or not. I see her as damned either way. At this point, some people (like Sully) will simply refuse to believe she’s straight, no matter what. People will hate her either way. I choose who to tell about my sexuality. That’s MY choice. Her sexuality has nothing to do with the job. God. I really need to let this go.
Annamal
Ok question for all of the weirdos arguing that other people’s sex-life should be everyone’s business.
I use the term partner when referencing my significant other because here in metropolitan New Zealand “partner” is pretty commonly used to describe both heterosexual and homosexual couples (whether wedded, civil unioned or unofficial but long-standing).
When I refer to my “partner” around Americans they often seem to assume that I’m gay and partnered with another women. Am I under the same burden that Ms Kagan is? The instant I see eyes widen in speculation should I immediately chime in that “of course I’m with a guy and totally straight… no really”?
I lost count of the number of creepy right-wingers who “knew” that Helen Clark our former prime minister was gay (despite her >30 year relationship with a guy).
Her response to them was along the lines of “nothing wrong with it but I love my husband so no” and I don’t think she even owed them that.
Cerberus
Wake up. Peek up blog.
Hol-ey Shit.
I don’t know whether to be appalled by the dogged determined deliberate missing of the point by a small handful of commenters or be refreshed that no one else was buying the rotten mangoes they were trying to sell.
I’m going to choose the latter.
One last go, in case the usual suspects wake up and want to continue.
First up, no one is arguing for the closet. All other things being equal, I prefer people to come out, when queer, both to family and friends and everyone else that they can. It’s a great visibility political tactic, but more importantly it’s a great means of eliminating created tension and dishonesty in communication with friends and family. Instead of having to assume one’s loved ones will reject them and acting accordingly, by coming out, they can rebuild full relationships with them.
That also has nothing to do with forced outing and more critically in assuming that someone is gay, demanding that they come out, threatening them if they don’t, and refusing to take any comment they make about it seriously unless they humiliate themselves and prostrate themselves before your belief. That’s birther crap. That’s “Obama is a secret muslim” crap.
And more critically, it is a well-known and furthermore ubiquitous tactic used against ANY woman who seems “uppity” to the speaker for decades now. Every woman who achieves a position of some renown especially in politics or activism is called a dyke whether or not she actually is one. And those calling them dyke refuse to listen to any statements they make to the contrary.
It’s partially to put them in their place, accuse them in a “being gay will make your arguments even more dismissible” fashion.
It’s however mostly to assert a dominance, reminding women everywhere that they’re sexual agency and sexual lives can never be their own and any man can demand to know their sexual history and judge them on it. It’s connected to the “you’re a slutty slut and that’s why you support abortions and the pill” or “you’re a frigid bitch who needs to get a good screw” types of arguments.
It’s also a means of placing the woman on the defensive, dehumanizing her to being simply a sexual object whose sex history completely overshadows her say immense qualifications for the job (like, I dunno, now?).
It also as noted earlier destroys assumptions of personal privacy and personal autonomy. To “defend” herself against the accusation in either affirmative or denial in accordance with what is true, she would have to forego her sexual privacy and have to have an awkward conversation about sex with a proven hostile audience and, if actually gay, she has been robbed of her chance to come out on her own terms by her own actions.
Overall though, I don’t really need to bother going over all this as the comments by those “arguing” on the other side are obviously bad faith.
I mean, from tim’s “I know she is, just because, and if you disagree with me you think the closet is all sunshine and rainbows” disingenuous behavior to Little Boat’s obscene comparisons of homosexuality to adultery and sexual harassment, there’s not a real strong sense of getting it and the arguments being used betray that it’s more about the thrill of outing to them than any deep emotional conviction.
Little Boot’s comments especially bothered me on the point of comparing homosexuality to negative sexual interactions and abuses of power and trust as somehow a positive defense of homosexuality. No, that wasn’t. And furthermore having her sexual orientation treated like everyone else’s? Would have looked like no one asking. No one demanded to know what positions John Roberts engages in sexually with his wife or how many romantic partners Sonia Sotomayor has had or even what orientation she is.
No one asks most straight people that, but gay people and uppity women get that grilling all the time. Get reduced to ciphers and political actors first whose range of humanity is severely limited. I posted a youtube scene earlier on which ended with the line “Can I not be gay right now? Can I just be a guy whose spouse is dying? Can I just have that, please?”.
He said this line because in the scene he was being interacted with entirely as a gay person waiting on their partner, brave for coming out, in need of political solidarity, etc… And what he also was, a man hurting, scared sick about their partner was drained from that, overlooked, because even allies view queer people as political ciphers.
If a group of Sullys (misogynist gay men) want to copy those actions, they can, free world and all, but I don’t think they’ll find an overwhelming number who agree in the queer community.
And if you still think she “owes” you an answer?
She’s quadsexual, now go chase the bouncing ball.
ChockFullO'Nuts
@asiangrrlMN:
It’s going to turn out ok. She is going to be confirmed unless something odd happens, and after that, nobody is going to care much about her sexual preference(s), whatever they are. Which is as it should be.
I think this kind of nonsense is posturing which is all about the next election. Kagan right now is a backdrop against which every big mouth in town can make speeches about whatever they want to bloviate about.
Kagan is going to overpower her opposition, she is too talented to be ground down by the hyenas. She will be your next justice.
The Harvard recruiting thing is not going to stick, either. Already the entire “story” is being debunked out there. She’s a solid pick.
chopper
just an FYI – i used secret voodoo magic last night and communicated with the spirit of harvey milk. he says ‘don’t speak for me, shithead.’
tim
@Cerberus:
Good morning, Cerberus. Hope you had a good night’s rest.
Um…your argument here has no merit, simply because it is offered in “bad faith.” How do I know that? Oh, um, cause I disagree with you, and um, cause I say so.
And I am a gay man, and because of my penis I know this.
All best,
Tim
grendelkhan
Since when did Andy start chugging the Kool-Aid? There’s fandom, and then there’s just plain making shit up because, if true, it would make you super-duper happy.
His imaginative wanking over Kagan’s supposed progressivism is far more disturbing than his imaginative wanking over her supposed gayness, especially since it’s shared by plenty of people I actually respect, e.g., Larry Lessig.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
s