USA Supreme Court Nominee Kagan's Sexuality

Just wanted to note for the record that I am fascinated and rather perturbed with some conservative blogs and several media outlets' focus on whether Supreme Court nominee Kagan is lesbian / gay or not.

Men are coming forward to say they dated her. Her friends say she just has not found the right man yet - she is about 50. As if opposite sex dating or even marriage had anything whatsoever to do with an individual's discovery of their being gay. I am NOT daring to say she is gay. Frankly, I don't see any relevance.

Several are suggesting that IT does indeed matter because several cases for lgbt rights are certain to come before the Court in the next decades. They argue that IF she is lesbian, such would influence her ability to decide fairly on lgbt issues ... such as marriage equality.

What fascinates ME, is that no one is suggesting that all straight justices ought to recuse themselves from all cases wherein heterosexual exclusivity is the heart of the matter. Such as marriage equality for all American families and the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell nonsense.

IF a justice's sexual orientation prevents them from giving a fair decision on an issue regarding the human rights of gay folks and the maintenance of heterosexual privledge ... then it ought to cut both ways. But oh no, not in the current USA. Only gay folk are naturally biased ... not straight folk. What hogwash!

Ms. Kagan is universally proclaimed as one VERY smart person who knows the law inside and out. She has a history of pulling in and respecting both liberal and conservative thinkers. All this nonsense on conservative blogs and in the media only indicates the weirdness of the writers ... not the reality of Ms. Kagan. Especially indicative are comments on Free Republic about the loss of white, male privlege. It amazes me but also lances the boil of heterosexual exclusivity, sexism, and racism in my beloved republic.

All in all, I think it is a good topic for discussion - what does it say about us all? In 100 years or so "they" will probably figure it out.

If Ms. Kagan is not proclaiming her sexuality for all of us to know about, it isn't anyone's business.

As far as I am concerned, I would prefer for there to be a homosexual justice on the court. We need diversity on the court. It should have 5 women and 4 men, a decent mix of religions and one atheist.

What really ticks me off is the Republicans in Congress had already stated they were going to protest whoever the president nominated (without knowing who he'd choose). How transparent do they have to be before we lose all respect for them? (rhetorical....I lost respect a long time ago).

It is pretty sad that that is the focus. Every time a single older woman, who has never married, is in the political spotlight, the issue of her sexuality comes up. Not her brains, her competance in her chosen field of work, but whether or not she is gay.

Men can be unmarried and just be called a confirmed bachelor, but an unmarried woman of a certain age??? Oh, she must be gay or she would have married by now. Does the fact that she just hasn't found the right man and is smart enough NOT to marry the wrong one just to fit into society ideas about women come into play? No.

And bias???? Everyone has a bias. To think that all those guys sitting on the Supreme Court right now do not have some sort of bias is ridiculous. That is why we have courts that are conservative or liberal. That is a bias!! But some biases are more "acceptable" than others. Heaven forbid if anyone tries for a leveling out. You are bucking the system there.

I'm do not know if she would be a good judge or not. But her sexuality has nothing to do with it.

Alli

Ditto on what Alli said. She summed it up better than I could have.

We all have biases and those that think there are those without are sadly deluded.

I deal with bias and being pigeon holed myself. By appearance and lifestyle I get tagged as a redneck and all of the negative associations that go with it. I have a degree, am not homophobic, not racist or chauvinistic. Nor am I associated with any conservative fundamentalist religion.

It seems that some bias and negative association is still OK in our society. None of it should be and we should really take a close look at the person and who they are before we judge or condemn them.

Just because someone is a redneck does not mean they are a bigot.

Just because someone lives in city and appears to be a progressive does not mean they are.

Not judging a book by it's cover means all books, not just a few hand selected ones.

Kagan's sexuality and martial status are irrelevant to the job. I hope for the day when such matters are not issues and whether or not the person is selected/ hired for the job is judged only on her/his ability/experience. Sadly, I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime.

Chris

everything that one experiences in life builds their judgements, feelings, beliefs, etc. the important part is if one can separate those and make decisions and judgements without overpowering inflection. bias in one way or another will always leak in.

I don't have a problem with her sexuality no matter who she chooses to date. I am concerned, however, that she wasn't ever a judge. I feel that any candidate should have experience as a judge before they're placed on the supreme court.

Interesting point, Brenda. but I recall that some of the best justices in our history were never judges before the Supreme Court - President Lincoln's appointment of his political rival Salmon Chase comes to mind. Ms. Kagan lives and breathes the law and has staked her life on the rule of law. Frankly, that is good enough for me.

The fact that she never served as a judge would usually be an issue but there are too many examples throughout supreme court history to disprove this factor. She certainly has an extensive amount of legal experience, whether or not it transfers to the supreme court will tell. I personally, do not have a problem if she is gay or hetersexual, as long as she interprets the law fairly. Anyone's sexuality when serving is no more a factor than if they prefer blondes or brunettes, just be fair. I have some opinions which I will keep to myself, lord knows we don't need more arguments on here. I will say though that devising a Supreme Court of diversity that mirrors our country is a hard task. There are a multitude of religions, 13 basic and then spin offs of those, and not to mention the ethnic diversity which spans near a hundred. Trust me I am of Irish decent, but within my family there are a multitude of cultural,ethnic,sexual preference and religious backgrounds, as there are with many Americans. It will always be hard to devise a Court reflective of our country in the way of diversity, or should we say, our own view of diversity. We can only support the justices that are chosen, no matter race,sexual preference,gender etc and look at them as Americans who uphold our Constitution.

It is the duty of the opposition party to scrutinize any governmental appointee and object if that is what they decide based on their findings. That pendulum has swung both ways with each of the parties over the years. Without that process then we have a one party government.

I personally would like to see someone that has had many years on the bench hearing and interpreting case law. In the real world the high ranking jobs must be earned and the candidate must be able to prove they have the experience to fulfill the job description.

When a high ranking job position is filled with someone with no experience it does not go over well with the rest of the company and de-legitimizes the process.

So we shall see what shakes out.