Even the National Organization for Women makes the mistake of confusing one’s sexuality with sex. It’s nonsense like this that muddles the entire point of knowing whether Elena Kagan plays for our team.
Asking whether Kagan is a lesbian “goes too far,” writes Erin Matson, NOW’s action vice president. “Declaring Ms. Kagan a lesbian, or encouraging the media and/or senators to ask her to identify her sexual orientation, as former Bush speechwriters, FOX News commentators and the American Family Association have started to do, is inappropriate at best and a sort of pornographic McCarthyism at worst. Powerful women are often dragged down to a sexual level, whether it’s lesbian-baiting as in the case of Solicitor General Kagan, being called a ‘ball-breaker’ or having a face digitally imposed on top of a scantily clad model. Using words (or even Photoshop) to create sex tape-like imagery for women in the public eye is insulting and degrading to all women, period. Such behavior sends a message that women who dare to try to be the ‘first,’ ‘second’ or ‘third’ in a field will have to pay a price.”
Matson is right about one thing: Far too often women in positions of power are derided sexually. But objective interest in Kagan’s sexual orientation has very little, or even nothing, to do with what she does behind closed doors. We would be asking the same questions about Obama’s Supreme Court nominee if the president selected a man. We want to know as much relevant information about the candidate as we can, so we know whether to lobby our senators to approve or deny the president’s choice.
Without being able to discuss Kagan’s sexual orientation, we cannot know macro issues (like whether she’s experienced a certain type of discrimination and thus knows first-hand the importance of eradicating it) or micro issues (like whether her partner is an oil company executive, or someone who could stand to benefit from an upcoming ruling). And knowing whether Kagan is hetero or homo isn’t even much of a factor in the same-sex marriage debate, which will inevitably reach the Supreme Court; she is just as qualified, as any straight or gay person is, to decide an issue of equality.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The White House has told us Kagan is not a lesbian, and saying so amounts to a “false charge”; sources who have spoken to Queerty say otherwise. But none of this is about outing a person who wants to stay in the closet. It’s about holding accountable a woman who might be interpreting the Constitution for the next four decades. Nothing is off the table.
Kieran
I wonder how the American Jewish community would feel if the White House felt it necessary to deny “rumors” that Elena Kagan was really a Jew? Or if Kagan herself needed to “plead the fifth” if asked whether or not she was Jewish?
Fitz
“It’s nonsense like this that muddles the entire point of knowing whether Elena Kagan plays for our team.”
I assure you that she does NOT bat for my team, weather she likes men or women. The people on my team are pro GLBT.
DM73
Her sexuality does not guarantee she is a GLBT advocate either. She might not be the first lesbian on the court, similar issues surround Justice Sotomayor.
Cam
I’ve said this to people who constantly talk about “Privacy” in Hollywood and how terrible it is to invade somebody’s “PRivacy” by asking if they are gay or not.
Our sexuality is NOT the same thing as who we are fucking and what we do in bed.
Nobody is asking Kagen what she likes her partner to do to her on Saturday Nights after a few glasses of wine and an Angelina Jolie movie.
Does anybody remember when Bush was nominating John Roberts as the new Chief Justice, all the articles that were written about his young toddler son wandering out in front of the podium and his wife’s stressed look? It was used to humanize him in articles and was seen as a huge asset. Was it a horrible invasion of his privacy to have people know he had a wife and son? Was it “Dragging him down to a sexual level” for people to see that he had a wife?
NOW has always been a bit fearful of the “Lesbian: lable. Back in the days of feminism they made the decision to push for gay rights because they were afraid that all feminists would get called “Lesbians”. Sounds like they still think “Lesbian” is a dirty word.
Cam
Whoops, NOW made the deciswion NOT to push for gay rights, not push, misstype.
Anon
Yes, we should know if Elena Kagan is gay….
So we can proudly applaud her as a example of how far America has come, and how far we have to go.
So we can acknowledge that gays are not ‘disgusting’ second class citizens, but valuable member of our society.
So we can help end the bigotry directed against people because of the sex of the person they fall in love with.
So we can renounce DOMA, DADT, and all the other hateful, foul laws in this nation that violate the Constitutional rights so many Americans claim to hold dear, and pass other laws (Such as the ENDA) that protect the GLBTTQQ community.
So we can show the countless people who are afraid to come out of the closet that it is okay to do so, and to accept yourself.
And you know what? It would be about ****ing time.
Tommy
It seems to me in this article you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say you need to know her sexual orientation, but then on the other hand you say it wouldn’t make any difference in her decision on same sex marriage. Make up your mind!
If Ms. Kagan wants to tell everyone that she is gay, then that’s fine. But if she doesn’t want to, that’s fine too.
But I am more interested in her position on gay rights issues not what her personal sexual orientation is.
Look at Clarence Thomas. He is African American but the most anti-civil rights justice ever. Did his blackness make any difference in his decisions? No, but his ideology did.
As a community, this classification of people by sexual orientation and the constant need to force everyone to say what they are has gotten out of hand. I”m sick of the witch hunt to decide who is one of us. It’s up to the individual if they want to come out or not come out, but they shouldn’t be forced to.
Steve
Yes her sexual orientation is important and we should have every right to ask that question. For those of us that think the only marriage is between one man and one woman, we don’t want a deviate on the Supreme Court making decisions that will have a negative effect on my children and their children. We would like the Supreme Court to get back to defending the original works of the constitution and the declaration of independence. Then we would not be so worried about the over bearing government forcing life decisions on us. If our forefathers wanted the government to make all the decisions for us, they would have spelled that out for us. They clearly did not. They wanted all of us to be free to make our own choices. To allow a lesbian on the Supreme Court will damage every decision that they hand down from now on. The conservatives will always have something to point their finger at, “Well a straight justice would not have made that decision” Things like that will taint everything that they hand down with Kagan on the bench. Are we completely out of quality JUDGES that have proved their worth as a sitting judge??? I pray that God will help our Great country return to right thinking and keep this woman off the Supreme Court!!
God Bless America!!
Cam
No. 8 · Steve
Yes her sexual orientation is important and we should have every right to ask that question. For those of us that think the only marriage is between one man and one woman, we don’t want a deviate on the Supreme Court making decisions that will have a negative effect on my children and their children. We would like the Supreme Court to get back to defending the original works of the constitution and the declaration of independence.
_______________________
First of all Steve, if Ted Haggard and George Rekers situations have proven anything, it’s that people like you who come on to gay blogs and go on about attacking gays as devients etc…, that you are obviously gay and not able to deal with it.
Secondly, you want to defend the origional constitution? The origional? Without all the additional amendments? So you support Slavery, think that women shouldn’t have the right to vote and that we should not have Freedom of religeon or Speech in this country? (Remember, the Bill of rights was added on to the origional Constitution).
People like you Steve make me happy, because if you’re intelligence is typical of our opponents, we’re going to win this civil rights battle.
AndrewW
If Kagan is “hiding” the fact that she is a lesbian, than it does hurt our efforts because she (and the White House) believe it needs to be hidden – like a defect or disease.
If the risk is filibuster, we would (in the long run) be better with a “filibustered lesbian,” than lies or encouraging the “closet.”
The “L” question is going to be asked. They should be preparing to answer it, instead of denying it. Most people who simply see a picture of Kagan conclude that she’s a lesbian, fairly or not.
Having a lesbian on the Supreme Court is less important than having an honest, authentic conversation about her, including her sexuality – that IS who she is. If she is not confirmed because she is gay, that’s the reality of life in America. But hiding the “stigmatized” fact that she is gay only promotes and perpetuates the problem. The stigma doesn’t end until we confront it – not hide it. None of this encourages “coming out,” it suggests more hiding.
Darling Nikki
Isn’t Sotomayor a dyke?
Cam
@No. 10 · AndrewW
Agreed
David Ehrenstein
If asked she’ll say “No.”
And that WON’T “be the end of it.”
Pete
@ Steve
Not qualified? Not quality? Have you read her track record? To say Kagan is not qualified to sit on the high court is like saying Warren Buffet isn’t qualified to teach a personal investment class, or Stephen Hawking isn’t fit to be a physicist simply because he cannot physically speak himself. You say that our founding fathers wanted us to be free…so where exactly does this agreement of yours with them, and your refusal to accept a lesbian judge intersect? I’m failing to see freedom in this.
Tommy
Yes, but if you ask her if she’s a lesbian and she says no, how are you going to tell for sure if she’s telling the truth or not unless you get a private investigator to go into her bedroom and she what she’s doing there?
Suppose she really isn’t a lesbian and the White House is telling the truth about her. There seems like there are a lot of stereotypes being perpetuated here saying she must be a lesbian because of how she looks. I don’t think we as a community should encourage that.
But unfortunately some people are going to say she’s lying if she says she’s not a lesbian when maybe she isn’t.
In my experience in certain “boring” professional fields like law, accounting etc, there are a lot of women who just aren’t into fashion and makeup and prefer to focus on their work and not how they look and they are totally straight! So you can’t tell she’s a lesbian for sure based on the fact she doesn’t look like a fashion model.
Samwise
@AndrewW: There just aren’t enough thumbs-up in the world for that comment.
Steve
For Pete
Take a long hard look a t Warren Buffet’s track record; I have seen first hand how he has manipulated an individual stock for a friend. He bought it and recommended it to others. It was for a company I worked for. The company was a poor investment and had a poor record, he bought it, and the stock price soared. He dumped it after making a nice profit. The stock price then went back in the dumper where it started and belonged. So, no Mr. Buffet is not qualified to ETHICLY teach others how to invest. But you probably aren’t interested in things like ethics.
As for my freedom, I should not have to have another judge with no judicial experience and what I consider a wrong way of thinking making judgment calls on my way of life. Sorry to disappoint you, but I know that there many others out here that are straight and know that our creator has never found same sex “unions” to be what he intended. And the writers of the constitution (and the bill of rights) followed his examples of what is right and wrong to be a great basis for founding a new country. I guess you will have to find out when you get to those pearly gates to find out that your “Way of thinking” is not going to get you into heaven. But I will pray for you anyway.
Lamar
It’s sad that the media etc. can probe mens’ lives to see if they are gay but the second it’s a woman suddenly we are demeaning all women, how does that work? That organization needs to get a grip.
Cam
@Steve: Said…
“As for my freedom, I should not have to have another judge with no judicial experience and what I consider a wrong way of thinking making judgment calls on my way of life.”
___________
Funny, in your first post you were talking about her adhearing to the origional constitution. Now you are saying to want to go in front of a judge who thinks the way you do. Does that work for everybody? Can crminials go in front of a judge that thinks crime is ok? Can murderers go in front of a judge that thinks murder is ok?
B
No. 10 · AndrewW wrote, “If Kagan is “hiding” the fact that she is a lesbian, than it does hurt our efforts because she (and the White House) believe it needs to be hidden – like a defect or disease.”
You can legitimately believe that her sexual orientation is irrelevant to the function that a Supreme Court justice performs as is a nominee’s video rentals (which were published in the press in one case even though they were unremarkable and could have merely reflected the tastes of others in his family – it resulted in legislation called the Video Privacy Protection Act).
Some of us care about a nominee’s competence and “judicial philosophy”. We do not care about a nominee’s gender, sexual orientation, racial/ethnic background, hair stylist, taste in films, and whether or not the nominee dyes his or her hair or had a face lift, as examples of irrelevant characteristics.
Steve
@Cam
Let’s face it, the criminals are in front of judges that think the rights of criminals are more important than the rights of the people that get shot, raped, have there property stolen or destroyed. So, we are already there, judges do think “Some” crimes are ok. Too late on that one. Maybe you could worry about getting people that break the laws to be punished. And not worry about condemning me and others that don’t automatically agree with you and your way of thinking. There is no way you will ever get me to agree with some of the things you say. I am just trying to say that a judge should not be clearly on one side of the fence when it comes to making judgments on issues that will affect not only our country, but the entire world!
Forrest
I hope she is straight. I don’t want a pathetic closet case representing us on the Supreme Court.
musicj48
I believe sexuality should be left completely out of the decision to appoint her to the Supreme Court. Whether she is a lesbian or not is none of our concern. It should be about her abilities as a possible appointee to our nation’s highest court. I firmly believe about keeping sexuality an issue away from this decision. If she is homosexual, great for her. If she is heterosexual, great for her. Leave it at that and stop forcing people out of closet, that is the biggest reason, in my eyes, that the LGBT community is not equal. We, as a community, as obsessed with the idea that everyone is gay, lesbian, or some variation other than straight, its sickening! If we want equality, we should act the same (if not better) than our heterosexual counterparts. . .
Forrest
@musicj48:
Well, sexuality is not left out of heteros public lives. Why are we supposed to be silent? Silence=Shame
AndrewW
@musicj48: I don’t think the big problem for her confirmation is whether or not she is a lesbian. At this point, it is a question of deception by the White House.
While I have never met Kagan, I was aware of her even prior to her confirmation as Solicitor General. That knowing included the general knowledge that she was a lesbian. It was somewhat “common knowledge.”
But, for the sake of upcoming confirmation hearings, if they can show she is a lesbian the issue won’t be her sexuality – it will be the denials and deception. That’s what the “other side” will pounce on.
IF she IS, it will come out.
musicj48
@Forrest: I was in no way referring to silence or hiding. I do not define my life by my sexuality, and i do not agree with anyone who does. I am who i am and i should be defined/limited to one fact about me, its not appropriate.
Its like the parable about the blind men and the elephant, each describing one aspect and not getting the whole picture because of it. Sexuality should not be treated the same way. As previously stated, it should be just another fact of who you are, not a definition. . .
Joey O'H
I really would love to see someone openly gay in Government and actually BE a GLBT advocate… For a change.
Joey O'H
@Lamar:
I agree with you. Men are always targeted and probed about their sexuality, yet if there is a woman in question, it’s considered wrong as in the case of NOW, who can be real tight asses when they choose to be.
If she is a closet case, the GLBT community can expect nothing from her.
When is Government going to be on our side for a change and treat us with the respect as the human beings we are?
Forrest
@musicj48:
I agree with you in theory but we are not treated the same way. Homosexuality is not considered equal to heterosexuality in our era. That is the world we live in. And we won’t reach an equal playing field by refusing to stand up and be out and vocal about who we are.
Cam
No. 21 · Steve said…
@Cam
Let’s face it, the criminals are in front of judges that think the rights of criminals are more important than the rights of the people that get shot, raped, have there property stolen or destroyed. So, we are already there, judges do think “Some” crimes are ok. Too late on that one. Maybe you could worry about getting people that break the laws to be punished.
_____________________________
Really? Then I guess that our prisons are so overcrowded because tourists are visiting them to try the great food?
======================================================
No. 23 · musicj48 said…
I believe sexuality should be left completely out of the decision to appoint her to the Supreme Court. Whether she is a lesbian or not is none of our concern.
But it’s ok for Justice Roberts to be up on stage with his wife and child and for it to be seen as a good thing? Treating her sexuality as if it’s shameful is just another form of bigotry.
musicj48
@Cam: I never said anything about shame or silence or anything to that affect. My words are being twisted and its rather annoying. . . .
I do not think heterosexuality should play a factor is the decision either, hence why i said it as “sexuality.” I am also not saying anything to the affect of having Supreme Court justices being “sexless” and “eunuch/female equivalent.” A feel a justice needs to be appointed based on merit, not sexual preference.
Cam
No. 31 · musicj48
@Cam: I never said anything about shame or silence or anything to that affect. My words are being twisted and its rather annoying. . . .
I do not think heterosexuality should play a factor is the decision either, hence why i said it as “sexuality.” I am also not saying anything to the affect of having Supreme Court justices being “sexless” and “eunuch/female equivalent.” A feel a justice needs to be appointed based on merit, not sexual preference.
_________________________
Nobody appointed Justices Roberts or Ginsberg because of their sexuality…but they didn’t hide their hetrosexuality like it was a dirty secret either.
AndrewW
It’s not about her “sexuality” – it’s about hiding her sexuality. This will come back and bite Obama in the ass.
Fitz
No one has even brought up the possibility that she is not lesbian, but just a very asexual person. There really ARE people who really don’t have sexuality as a big drive. I am not saying she is one– I don’t know that. I am just saying that not only is the binary of gay-straight BS, but so is the assumption that everyone IS ‘something’
hephaestion
Elena Kagan looks exactly like Julie Goldman of “The Big Gay Sketch Show.”
And Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama looks like a big ol’ Closet Queen to me.
gaylib
Just try to imagine if the nominee was elusive about identifying their gender. Think of Pat from SNL at a confirmation hearing. That’s how ridiculous this is. Knowing her identity as either gay/straight/other has nothing to do with what she does in bed, but who she is as a person. We know that every other member of the supreme court is straight because it is implied by the state sanctioned heterosexual relationships that they enjoy (marriage), which are denied to our community. If she is not a lesbian, how in the world would it hurt her to say so? And if she is gay, than her unwillingness to correct the White House when they lied and said she wasn’t a lesbian destroys her credibility. Finally, the Admin has absolutely no leg to stand on when they say this is a private issue after they let the cat out of the bag by claiming she was NOT a lesbian, as if it was a thing to be hide and be ashamed of.
jeffree
To assume that any SCOTUS candidate’s gender/ ethnicity /race /religion / sexual orientation is a good predictor of their eventual voting record is a pretty bad bet.
It’s nice to think that with Kagen we might finally have a SupCo justice on “our side” but that’s no guarantee.
Clarence Thomas has been often called out by the Black media for not representing “minority rights.” His prior judicial record made it clear that he had other priorities, but hope remained. His record reflects a deep conservatism that takes “minority” interests in2 less consideration that other political considerations
With Kagen, regardless of her status as lesbian/ str8/ asexual or disinterested in sex, her lack of history as a J/U/D/G/E means she’s going to be hard to pin down as to philosophy.
Not to repeat myself 2 loudly, but the rightwing blog sites are as concerned about her being Jewish as her possible status as a Lesbian. Neither aspect is seen @ a plus in their messianic apostolic homophobic & theocratic view of the world……
I hope Obama has a backup plan if Kagen cant get the thumbs up. So far I can’t see any reason NOT to favor her (other than lack of experience as a judge, but she’s not the first nomminee in that boat) but I can’t see 2 many reasons yet why she was the designated nominee, either.
Too much is unknown about her so far to know whether she will be good/ bad/ neutral on the things that us social progressives care most about.