Why We Should Stop Talking About Elena Kagan's Sexuality
Elena Kagan, Supreme Court nominee, traversed Capitol Hill by tram as she made the rounds of Senate leaders Wednesday, 05/12/10. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
ou know things are getting a little grim when Eliot Spitzer has to vouch for your heterosexuality. "I did not go out with [Elena Kagan], but other guys did," he told Politico. "I don't think it is my place to say more." Indeed. Wonkette pounced on the story with glee: "Eliot Spitzer: I Did Not Pay Kagan for Sex." Which is a relief because that really would have complicated things.
The rather distracting debate about Elena Kagan's sexuality reached fever pitch this week, thanks to a powerfully argued series of posts by gay blogger Andrew Sullivan, who insisted that Kagan's sexual orientation should be a matter of public record if she is going to be confirmed as a Supreme Court judge.
"It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish," he argued. "We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. And yet we have been told by many that she is gay ... and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively."
Let's get one thing clear: it should not be an "accusation" to ask if someone is gay, nor a "slimy" attack. Nor should it be considered a "charge," as a White House spokesman declared it to be last week. Being gay is not a crime, and not a shame. Sullivan has a point. But it is still, for some, a private matter. For those people, it should be their decision whether or not, or when, to come out. If Kagan was indeed a lesbian, the story should be her own. But now that the question has been posed, and an answer has been given, can we move on? Questioning is one thing; harassment and prurience are another. The unfortunate thing is, now that Kagan's love life is on the agenda, every date, awkward kiss, and broken relationship is of interest to some commenters. And these kinds of details should not be required, not unless all the other judges on the court are going to be treated in the same way (and, frankly, that information might be a little stomach-turning).
Unless the many people who have addressed the topic are lying and Kagan has hidden her supposed homosexuality not just from President Obama but her best friends as well, the case should be closed. The rumors seemed to only gain momentum this week: First the White House addressed them by calling them "inaccurate" last Thursday. Were administration officials telling the truth? Or were they actually suggesting it's a bad thing to be gay? Next, Kagan's friends came out armed with facts aiming to prove that while she might be able to hit a ball with a bat, she is still straight. And this is where things got a little depressing. Sarah Walzer, Kagan's close friend and law-school roommate, said the problem was that Kagan had not found the right guy: "I've known her for most of her adult life and I know she's straight. She dated men when we were in law school, we talked about men - who in our class was cute, who she would like to date. She definitely dated when she was in D.C. after law school, when she was in Chicago, and she just didn't find the right person."
Then, showing how far this discussion has strayed from what attributes and intellectual approaches we want in a powerful Supreme Court judge, Walzer went on to say that Kagan had also engaged in "girl-talk stuff" about how to get a guy's attention. Her problem was less "how to wear your hair" - which has gone from long and parted in the middle to a shorter style - and more how not to discourage potential suitors who might be intimidated by a woman who is both exceptionally smart and confident, a sadly familiar refrain. "It's an ongoing challenge for very smart women," said Walzer. "There are not very many men who would choose women who are smarter than they are."
So now, deftly, the narrative swings from the vices of the closet to the dashed romantic hopes of smart girls. From a brainy Billie Jean to a baffled Bridget Jones. From a potential gay icon to a reminder of the cliché that clever girls stay single. Which makes the discussion a touch awkward. When former White House communications director Anita Dunn chimed in to condemn the CBS blogger who suggested Kagan was gay, she said he was simply "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."
Apparently, for some members of the public, softball + short hair + smart + single = lesbian. (Aside: I am all in favor of having athletic lesbians ruling the country; I wish more of them would run for office. It might bode well for our civil-rights debates.) But these assumptions are silly. If Kagan were to say she is a not a lesbian, what would we be discussing then? Loneliness? How women may succeed professionally but fail personally? Let's not forget that bachelors have not historically been stigmatized - spinsters have. Bachelors were playboys, but spinsters were pitiful.
Try this little test: type the words "Elena Kagan" into Google and see what the top searches are. At the time of this writing, "Elena Kagan husband" and "Elena Kagan personal life" were the top two; fifth was "Elena Kagan married."
I understand that the closet is a dark and oppressive place for those both in and out of it. I think we need more diversity on the Supreme Court; I'd like some more mothers on there, for a start. But I would rather know Kagan's views on the Constitution - on taxes, health care, the rights of states, abortion, corporate donations - than whom she goes to bed with. We have received an answer, however indirectly, and even Andrew Sullivan has declared he has written his last post on the matter. He has moved on. Can the rest of us do so, too? The last thing we need is a phenomenally bright, driven candidate for the Supreme Court to be reduced to discussing her dating life. Bridget Jones made us laugh, but she was an idiot.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |












Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
The more that you talk about it, even to try to diminish the matter, the more you play into the hands of the homophobes.
sided with Monsanto on the Roundup Ready alfalfa issue, a month before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, despite the fact that the US government was not a defendant in the case. It seems that Kagan does not support a thorough study of GE seeds and their potential impact on environmental and human health. This should be of far greater concern to Americans than her sexual preferences; however, she appears to be the "corporate choice," not the "people's choice," and the people have no voice in her selection.
Such scum should be publicly flogged, but alas, in our land of the free, scum are free to be scum. Let us not propose though that being free confers any portion of respectability upon such scum. It doesn't in the least.
Even if they lack integrity? As Solicitor General, Kagan's intervened on behalf of Monsanto in the Roundup Ready Alfalfa case. What about OUR and farmers' civil rights in not having to be subjected to or forced to grow genetically engineered (read: heavily sprayed) plants? Or having grass-fed cattle subject to the same (e.g., Roundup Ready alfalfa)?
This woman has no integrity based on this alone. And we don't need another pro-Monsanto "justice" on the bench.
I hope everyone who cares about this issue -- who's tired of Monsanto's tactics -- to call your senators and protest. This is a health/safety issue as GE-plants mess with intestinal flora. What else would we expect from a chemical company?
I am betting Senator Graham pounces on this issue with his usual style of asking embarrassing questions, both the him and the nominees and witnesses to make a rhetorical point. However, he has a personal interest in how this issue has been handled. I expect him to vilify those who use innuendo about sexual orientation to denigrate people either by claiming they are gay or by claiming they are a closeted gay. Both groups deserve vilification.
I learned in high school about people tearing down someone's reputation this way and that it is impossible to fight the rumors or defend oneself. I expect Senator Graham to be very sensitive to this issue. There are going to be a lot of red faces when he's finished.
I thought we Americans - at least some of us - had learned the lesson of the privacy of sexuality after the Clinton circus.
and lbgt folks don't stop being gay when they step outside the bedroom door - mr. sullivan is not suggesting that anyone share details of their latest tryst or favorite position.
Unless you are trying to say pedophilic lust is voluntary and all people are pedophiles which also seems ridiculous, I don't get your comment. Are you suggesting pedophilia is culturally invented and homosexuality is not?
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx
pedophilia is no more an orientation than bestiality, sadism, biastophilia (getting turned on by rape), vouyerism, mechanophilia (wanting to get it on with your car or other machines)
those are paraphilias - defined as powerful and persistent sexual interest other than in copulatory or precopulatory behavior with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners.
for a more complete list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias
Most European countries and Canada have gone way beyond our provincialism on this topic.
Sadly, only those who see some political gain with special interest groups might find value in trying to "make much ado about nothing."
Kagan, like the rest of us, need be entitled to her privacy in her personal life. What people do socially and within the confines of their own home concern none of us, unless they are committing grievous crimes.
Grow Up America - Julia Baird's last paragraph says it all!
Having said that, however, we should all recognize that the supreme court officially declared itself dead, in the grand constitutional scheme of things, when they interfered with a national presidential election in 2000, in which they had no legal right to do.
The reason this has become an issue, is the republicans feel they can score points with those who want to keep the laws in place that relegate gays to second class citizenship. Fear and loathing are their favorite campaign tools, and gays have been an easy target in the past to whip up the base. just say activist judges!
the real problem isn't that she should be able to keep her private sexual encounters private. it is that those who actually are lgbt should be able to live their everyday lives in the open, just like their heterosexual neighbors, without fear.
Sullivan says, "It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish." The comparison to religion is interesting. The constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, but that doesn't translate to public acceptance of any religion.
What if President Obama had nominated a satanist? Freedom of religion or not, such a nominee would not have a chance of confirmation.
Homosexuality has nothing whatever in common with satanism other than being unacceptable to large parts society, but I think it unlikely that an openly homosexual nominee could be confirmed by the current senate.
kps
By now, President Obama should realize the GOP is hell bent on destroying the nation in order to destroy him.
The GOP is anti, un- and non-American party. It being copy on fascism and we all know what that will result in, don't we?
Being Catholic or prostestant doesn't matter in nominating Supreme Court Justices, what matter is that do not use their hypocrisy for advancing corruption, racism, fascism and neo-conservatism.
We need supreme court justices that will administer justice, not inquisitors like in the Dark Ages!
When a nation is dumb enough to "appoint" instead of "elect" their Supreme Court Justices, than it gets what it deserves and we are getting what we deserve with this Five Conservatives Supreme Court Justice.
I also object to one person "outing" another.
RSS feed for comments to this post