So much for the so what? defense.
Instead we're outing heterosexuals. It's all the rage in the Kagan age, as the gay rumor rises.
"I've known her for most of her adult life and I know she's straight," said Sarah Walzer, Kagan's roommate in law school and a close friend since then. "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, all of those things. 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." -- Elena Kagan's friends: She's not gay
From the White House going berserk over the CBS blog post that charged Elena Kagan was gay, to progressives who said he thought so too, to the latest Friends Defense, this entire spectacle has embarrassed just about everyone.
The hardest hit is Andrew Sullivan, with Politico asking: Did Andrew Sullivan act irresponsibly in pushing the is-Kagan-gay? story line so forcefully? Sullivan always goes for speculation based on what he doesn't know instead of what can be proven with facts, so I'm not quite sure why there is a question here. That Sullivan has a track record of disrespecting strong women, whether it's Hillary, Sarah or Elena, is what actually should be the tell whenever he's on the warpath. It's part of the fact free fantasy world Sullivan inhabits that's at issue.
Cue the I Know Elena Kagan And the Elena Kagan I Know Likes Men faze of Supreme Court vetting, which the White House is clearly pushing, with Kagan proponents on all sides, gay and straight, bending over backwards to prove her feminine credentials, along with her straight man lust.
As a side show to this is softballgate and the photo pictured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.
"It clearly is an allusion to her being gay. It's just too easy a punch line," said Cathy Renna, a former spokesperson for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation who is now a consultant. "The question from a journalistic perspective is whether it's a descriptive representation of who she might be as a judge. Have you ever seen a picture of Clarence Thomas bowling?" -- Softball Question, by Ben Smith
"A punch line?" Talk about touchy. Clarence Thomas bowling?
And it makes no difference that Patrick J. Buchanan sees a correlation between softball and lesbians. Are we never going to drag our country into the modern era, the 21st century, and simply laugh at people who remain in the 19th?
All of this misses the most important conversation, an opportunity missed, that the White House and all libertarian minded people should champion: You think Elena Kagan is gay? We have no idea. But so what if she is?
That's exactly where gay rights groups should be, but instead these small minded people are talking about her possibly looking butch on the Wall Street Journal, though they won't say that outright, and getting defensive over sporting comparisons with lesbians that are no less stereotypical than when Mike Barnicle squealed that Hillary Clinton reminded all men of their ex-wives.
I'm embarrassed for everyone, especially the White House. They're obviously so uncomfortable with gays that they trotted out people who know her to out her as a heterosexual.
However, considering this country still thinks to be gay is to practice immoral behavior I certainly don't expect Pres. Obama to show courage and mount the so what? defense. Because if there is one thing Mr. Obama isn't doing it's advancing social issues and the rights of women or gays (see health care and DADT). Can't get caught being progressive, especially in an election year.
Perhaps we should be talking about this instead:
A 1998 memo shows that Kagan was among advisers encouraging Clinton to deny Medicare funding for abortions in cases of rape or incest -- in part to avoid a messy battle with Republicans.
But no, instead it's her heterosexual prowess amidst a softball batting pose.
[...] But Journal officials ridiculed a question about the image, which also appeared among other photographs in the Times's coverage of Kagan. "If you turn the photo upside down, reverse the pixilation and simultaneously listen to Abbey Road backwards, while reading Roland Barthes, you will indeed find a very subtle hidden message," said Journal spokeswoman Ashley Huston. "I think your question is absurd," said Journal Deputy Managing Editor Alan Murray in a separate email. -- Softball Question, by Ben Smith
What a sorry spectacle this is.
Taylor Marsh is a political analyst out of Washington, D.C.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
Is Kagan Gay? It's All the Talk, and That's a Shame
Elena Kagan Hub | Elena Kagan Gay Blog Report | Towleroad, News ...
So Is She Gay? - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
Kagan's friends step forward to squelch gay rumors - Yahoo! News
Elena Kagan Gay Rumors Didn't Start with Conservatives - AOL News
Journalists Start Elena Kagan Gay Dance Again -- Daily Intel
The Gays "out" others to protect not only their rights but the integrity of the entire civil rights process.
Which supreme court nominee has EVER been required BY HETEROSEXUALS to provide proof of heterosexuality?
Of course Gay people, like everyone else, speculate on the sexuality of others. Because HETEROSEXUALS made it an issue in the first place.
Unlike heterosexuals, who freely persecute those who are different with the full force of governmental apparatus and societal approval, Gay people have neither the power nor need to oppress others who not just like them. Unlike heterosexuals, who "out" anyone on the mere suspicion of homosexuality, The Gays "out" ONLY those KNOWN to be homosexual who are also KNOWN to be anti-Gay. So, speculation by The Gays on the sexuality of others simply cannot be equated with the heterosexual imposition of "coming out".
Why do heterosexuals need to know in the first place? And why should anyone have to "tell" you anything?
The unburdened complacency of heterosexuals is the privilege of hegemony. Ever hear a White Person say, "I don't see race"? Anyone can be "open minded" when they aren't forced to fear and hide from persecution, disenfranchisement and extermination.
Her position on habeus corpus disqualifies her for any legal position.
She is a proponent of the Unitary Presidency.
Stop speculating freely and conspiratorially on the sexuality of others. It betrays your grotesque insecurity. It is also called Sexual Harassment.
Titillating gossip on the sexuality of others exposes your belief that homosexuality is "wrong" and worth gossiping about in the first place. Relinquish your infantile belief everyone is heterosexual and you have no need to sexually harass The Gays.
Let me put it another way: when you harass and persecute others they hide. STOP creating The Closet.
The question is: WHY are people asked BY HETEROSEXUALS to disclose homosexuality specifically, instead of general sexual orientation, in the first place? Answer: because it is still believed BY HETEROSEXUALS that homosexuality is "wrong", must be admitted.
Which supreme court nominee has EVER been required BY HETEROSEXUALS to provide proof of heterosexuality?
Of course Gay people, like everyone else, speculate about other people's sexuality. But it was HETEROSEXUALS who made it an issue in the first place. The huge difference that escapes you is this: Gay people have neither the power nor need to persecute others who not just like them...LIKE HETEROSEXUALS. So, speculation by The Gays on the sexuality of others simply cannot be equated with the heterosexual imposition of "coming out".
Why do heterosexuals need to know in the first place? And why should anyone have to "tell" you anything?
The transparency of heterosexuals is the privilege of hegemony. Ever hear a White Person say, "I don't see race"? Anyone can be "open minded" when they aren't forced to fear and hide from persecution, disenfranchisement and extermination.
Stop equating discretion with delusion.
If a "Suspected Stealth Gay" does not “come out” to you that lack of disclosure does not always mean a person is "Gay" and closeted. It very often means that person is one of two things:
a) avowedly "Gay" without any intention of discussing it with you and acknowledging your offensively suspicious, circumspect manner; or
b) heterosexual and annoyed with your mistake
In either case you're way out-of-line. People, Gay or straight, simply do not want to deal with your erroneous invasive presumptions about their sexuality.
Healthy people have boundaries. STAY within yours.
Stop demanding all The Gays come out to you. No homosexual owes you an explanation for, or disclosure of, anything...ever.
Personally recognizing and proudly acknowledging one's own sexual orientation is the privilege of heterosexuals. It is VERY different from "coming out", a compulsory public admission imposed by heterosexuals on The Gays to coerce disclosure.
Expecting The Gays to "come out" betrays your offensive belief The Gays are aberrant freaks who must disclose or be ferreted out. Just STOP pretending everyone is straight. When you admit everyone is not heterosexual, that The Gays actually EXIST, you will stop needing them to "come out" to you...all the time.
The Gays don't "come out" for themselves; they come out to you, for you, because of your pressure. Because it is simply too horrible for you to accept from the start everyone isn't heterosexual you have placed The Gays in the uncomfortable position of performing this stupid disclosure ritual you fetishize so intensely.
Stop pressuring Suspected Stealth Gays to signify as “Gay” or do something “Gay”, when they do not automatically come out to you personally, just to accommodate your remarkably-creepy-need-to-know. This compulsion to "come out" is a heterosexual fantasy and a bigoted function of the closet imposed upon The Gays by YOU.
I'll quote dben partially on this one: "Stop demanding all The Gays come out to you. No homosexual owes you an explanation for, or disclosure of, anything...ever."
However, personally recognizing and proudly acknowledging one's own sexual orientation is known as "coming out" when homosexuals do so, because heterosexist norms pressure them to remain silent. "Being outed" is an invasion of privacy, and is akin to "coming out" as a compulsory public admission imposed by heterosexist military codes to ensure that someone who has "told" manages to incriminate him/herself (almost always as a result of "being asked," despite the "asking" violating the same military code).
I agree with dben utterly that "coming out" has been made necessary by ruthless heterosexist bigotry and a "a emarkably-creepy-need-to-know. This compulsion to "come out" is a heterosexual fantasy and a bigoted function of the closet imposed upon The Gays by YOU."
Unlike heterosexuals, who freely persecute those who are different with the full force of governmental apparatus and societal approval, Gay people have neither the power nor need to oppress others who not just like them. Unlike heterosexuals, who "out" anyone on the mere SUSPICION of homosexuality, The Gays "out" ONLY those KNOWN to be homosexual who are also KNOWN to be anti-Gay. So, speculation by The Gays on the sexuality of others simply cannot be equated with the heterosexual imposition of "coming out".
The difference, as I see it, is this: Heterosexuals "out" others to expose and damage for no reason except titillation and ad sales. The Gays "out" to protect not only their rights but the integrity of the civil rights process.
Really? Why not "Attention homophobes"? I surmise you have skipped at least one of your hourly chill pills; though your rants make sense, your approach is no less offensive than other stereotypical idiots who like to attack a group of people because one or more individuals in this group are bigots. And yes, I believe any heterosexual who asks for the sexual orientation of anyone is homophobic.
And thank you for reminding people that gay people's impatience and skepticism with Mr. Obama is justified.
Mr. Obama too often compromises the dignity of gay people to pander to bigots.
So far, only one person has been willing to vouch that Ms. Kagan showed consistent heterosexual tendencies for a good portion of her life: Sarah Walzer. (Mr. Spitzer only said she dated men in college.) That seems to be pretty skimpy testimony to me.
But what happens if some Senator asks her point blank in public testimony? What is she going to do, claim the Fifth? What happens if she says she's straight and there's a bimbo eruption?
I think a lot of people trying to make this question one beyond the pale are afraid of just that, with the result being the Obama Administration pulls the nomination based on her lying to them about it (and a lot of people are hoping for just that).
It would be truly ironic if Ms. Kagan lost the job because of Anita Hill.
but what's really tragic is that so many avowed "non-homophobes" are responding "no she's not! we asked and she said 'no'", or "someone who went to law school with her said she thought boys were cute!" . . . implicit in this denial, however truthful, is that there would be something wrong with elena kagan being homosexual and/or that her sexual orientation is relevant to her qualifications to be a supreme court justice
by asking and answering this question, the white house made an irrelevant question relevant and implied that one way of answering that question was preferable . . . makes me wonder how they'll respond if the bigots start spreading rumors that elena kagan dates outside her race . . . will they ask her about it and then report to us the further details of kagan's personal life, or will they finally say "that's irrelevant"