Re: but Maggie Gallagher says that’s not so (and she cites the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights lobby, as agreeing with her that Kagan supports marriage equality).
The two views are not contradictory. In a related example Clarence Thomas told us in his Lawrence dissent that he viewed sodomy laws a “silly” and as a legislator he would vote for their repeal, however he did not think that the Constitution forbade the enactment of such laws. Similarly, Ms Kagan could support same sex marriage but not believe that it was constitutionally protected.

I could care less what her sexual preferences are – Sullivan seems to think it matters because it informs her world view.
I do think though that it stinks if every time a single female is up for a big job that person will be assumed to be gay because they are single. Face it – a lot of professional women end up single so it is absurd to make the assumption that every single woman is a lesbian.

I sincerely believe that it does matter if Kagan is an unrepentant homosexual. The foundation of our society was built upon the traditional man/woman relationship. Would we want an alcoholic to become one of the highest judges in the land? How about an avowed wife swapper? We are not talking about someone who has occasionally sinned, but someone who views sinfulness as normal, healthy, and something to be proud of. There is a big difference. People rarely analyze the issue honestly. The correct analogy would be an alcoholic judge who insisted that alcoholism is perfectly normal and God-given. See how crazy that is?

This topic is a sideshow worthy of Phineas T. Barnum.

I agree with Jon above. Kagan’s sexual orientation should be treated as a non-issue. However, Andrew Sullivan is right in predicting that attempting to use her lesbianism (if, indeed, she is gay) as a disqualification for serving on the Court will blow up in the faces of any conservatives who attempt this strategy. The majority of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage, but a majority supports other equality/non-discrimination legislation, and an overwhelming majority supports the repeal of DADT:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx.
Naked homophobia, thankfully, doesn’t play in Peoria anymore.

I doubt it matters, but the usual suspects will make a big old fundraising fuss over it.
I think what Patrick Leahy had to say about the situation sums it up well:
“We have some Republicans who would automatically oppose anybody who was nominated,” Leahy said. “The President could nominate Moses the Law Giver. In fact I told the President, I said you realize if you’d nominated Moses the Law Giver, somebody would raise, ‘but he doesn’t have a birth certificate! Where’s his birth certificate!’”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/pat-leahy-gop-would-quest_n_570037.html

I tend to agree with Keith. For some youths a member of the Supreme Court could become a lifestyle role model.
But, on the other hand, if she is willing to defend the actual Constitution–and not use it as a doormat for her personal ideologies-she might be the best that can be expected from this extremely left-leaning administration.

The future for Republicans/conservatives is eventually going to boil down to Dick Cheney vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes famously disowned his daughter when she came out of the closet. Details are conflicting as to the details of their relationship, but contrast to Cheney: even during his tenure as Vice President he’s remained largely neutral on the legal issues of gay rights from a political standpoint, but has never backed away from the love for his daughter, her partner, or their child. And it’s not even remotely some sort of “this is a tragedy we had to overcome as a family” narrative, rather just simple acceptance and love, both for a child, the loved one of a child, and a grandchild.
Note that some conservatives have tried to make an issue of Kagan’s sexuality, notably Ben Domenech, “a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505658.html?hpid=topnews
In a few decades this whole issue is going to seem like preferring redheads over brunettes. You might disagree on a personal level with the preference, but it’s not going to occupy much of your daily thought or influence your political positions.

Even if you think her sexual orientation should not matter (as I do), I wonder if a refusal to say what that orientation is might matter. I don’t think it matters whether a Mormon or a Methodist or a Unitarian or a Hindu is named to the Supreme Court, but if someone absolutely refused to say what their religious affiliation was, people’s antennae might go up.
That said, I understand that the White House has said that she is not gay.
(Captcha: “outfox observations”)

For some youths a member of the Supreme Court could become a lifestyle role model.
Well, I suppose anything is possible…

I don’t think it matters whether a Mormon or a Methodist or a Unitarian or a Hindu is named to the Supreme Court, but if someone absolutely refused to say what their religious affiliation was, people’s antennae might go up.
I, for one, would admire someone who took the stance that ‘no religious test’ actually means ‘no religious test’ and refused to make that information public.

It matters as much as the orientation of the other justices matters. It will affect her decision making just as much as it affects theirs.

For some youths a member of the Supreme Court could become a lifestyle role model.
I personally model my sexual practices as a mix Scalia and Thomas with a dash of Ginsburg thrown in when I’m feeling especially randy.
captcha: vice on (eerie isn’t it?)

And just for random trivia, it looks like we’ve already had 7 Unitarian Supreme Court Justices:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101281.html

Re: I do think though that it stinks if every time a single female is up for a big job that person will be assumed to be gay because they are single.
Same things happens with a single (never married) male. There were always whispers about Justice Souter, and look at the rumors that follow Charlie Crist, even despite his marriage. Where is it writen than EVERYONE must be married? There’s one area that the past was wiser about.
Re: Would we want an alcoholic to become one of the highest judges in the land?
Setting aside the fact that your analogy is offensive to many people, once upon a time we had a serial boozer leading our armies in the worst war we ever waged (I am talking about Grant of course). When the temperance people complained about this, the President (Lincoln) is reputed to have told them, “Find out what whiskey he drinks so I can start sending it to my other generals.” In any event, we are talking about a Supreme Court Justice here, not a bishop. The qualifications are quite a bit different.
Re: she might be the best that can be expected from this extremely left-leaning administration.
Whenever I hear that the Obama administration is “profoundly leftwing” or some such I always wonder if the poster dwells in an alternate universe far, far away. I don’t want to be offensive, but come on– this admninistration has continued just about all of George W. Bush’s policies that were not five-star disasters or morally radioactive. We even have the same Secretary of Defense! They are no more leftwing than I am a Muslim.

Maybe for the first time ever, I agree with Sullivan. Sexual matters should be openly stated, otherwise you’re a target for all kinds of blackmail and extortion.
Nice example: Larry Craig, who represented a hard-line pro-American state but always managed to support the ACLU on every important point about terrorists and such. I didn’t understand why he did that until the airport restroom event.

Deacon John M. Bresnahan: For some youths a member of the Supreme Court could become a lifestyle role model.
??!!
How many youths even know who the Justices are? Although the concept of cool kids showing their street cred by what justice they emulate is a–well–fascinating concept….
Keith: There have been alcoholics, adulterers, etc. in the Supreme Court, on Capital Hill, in the Oval Office, etc. Maybe not publicly avowed, but still. I don’t know that they necessarily goverened or adjudicted any less effectively or morally than their less morally compromised brethren.
While we’re on it, what about divorce? If the “foundation of our society was built upon the traditional man/woman relationship”, does that not include permanent marriage with no divorce? Is not divorce destructive of families, etc.? Should a divorced person be a justice, senator, president, etc.? It’s odd that somehow that that particular failure doesn’t seem to disqualify, whereas even a stable homosexual relationship would.

http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/tired-of-the-christianity-built-civilization-meme-you-bet-i-am/
I posted that blog to vent, and in keeping with a strong feeling that I would start venting again here, I invite readers to read my venting and, if so moved, comment on it here (or there). I’ll not take up Rod’s bandwidth further than that (at least for now…)

Sullivan’s stance does seem contradictory, until you consider what has happened to nominees who are open about their homosexuality. They are immediately subjected to widespread villification, Senate “holds” and other delays on confirmation; as often as not, they ultimately withdraw from consideration – which, of course, is the point of the hostile “outing” exercise.
The appropriate answer to any stranger’s questioning of one’s sexual preference or practices is, “None of your business.” The same answer should apply to other questions on matters that shouldn’t be part of the public domain, including one’s faith. One reason we have so many clowns and kooks in public office today is that sensible people no longer feel able to run for office and respond to impertinent questions with, “None of your business.”
Those who worry about how gay public officials might deal with public policy related to sexual practices might ask themselves how adulterers, procurers of prostitutes and those denying their homosexuality (we all know the names) have handled such policy questions. It’s also worth noting that most of the public officials who’ve advanced gay rights are married hetereosexuals.

It’s laughably obvious that Kagan is a hard-line, hard-left, reflexively pro-gay ideologue who doesn’t care a hoot in hell about the Constitution. But that would be true of any Obama nominee, whether straight or gay. So, given that fact, who cares if she’s gay? What did anyone expect?

Does it matter if Elana Kagan is gay? That’s an easy one…NO! Who cares what her sexual orientation is, as it has nothing to do with her qualifications for the position of Justice.

Mr. Moto, it’s not “laughably obvious”. You just don’t like Obama and will slander anything involved with his Presidency.

re: polistra
May 10, 2010 8:38 PM
Nice example: Larry Craig, who represented a hard-line pro-American state but always managed to support the ACLU on every important point about terrorists and such. I didn’t understand why he did that until the airport restroom event.
Are you serious?
# Rated 25% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
# Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
# Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
You can see all of his policy positions here, this guy was no friend of the ALCU even if they did speak in his defense about what might have happened in that airport:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Larry_Craig.htm

In 1978, Ronald Reagan campaigned against Prop. 6, which would have barred homosexuals from teaching in public schools in California.
Best as I can tell, that makes us three decades past the time when solid conservatives thought you should be disqualified from a job for your sexual orientation.
So it’s dismaying to have this debate, and it’s even more so to have to speak politely about the “American Family Association” and their ilk.

I’ll admit that was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw that articles made a point of mentioning she was “50 and unmarried” and opposed “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and her general background. It suggested that the reporter knew something and was trying to get it into the article without actually saying it. I could be wrong and I certainly don’t need to know one way or the other. I think it would be interesting but it doesn’t bother me. As long as she’s capable of being fair and impartial. that’s all that should really matter and her personal life should probably stay private.

A sad commentary about our civilization, that an admitted “gay” would even be considered for the supreme court. Being gay is anti Christian anti children by its nature, and a life of base tastless decision based on a perveted sexuality and defines one’s character, choices, and overall outlook. We should care that whether or not she is gay. Lawyers are idealogues, not just interperters. Being gay, as many male gay say, is genetic. It is not. It is purely psychological and a willful choice. A life based on a sexual desire.
If they (Republicans) do not bring this up, they are fools, and if they bring this up they will be homophobes, eitherway. But the fact that it is brought up at all, is to further dismantle the truth and to make a mental disease desirable and bad choice virtuess. God, please help us!

If she is personally and sexually gay it should not matter. If she is ideologically gay it should.

On the question of Ms. Kagan’s sexual orientation, this is not at all relevant to her nomination or service on the Supreme Court. she is most certainly entitled to opportunities to serve her country, irregardless of sexual orientation. This is none of my business and I have no right, or need, to even know her sexual orientation in order to evaluate her as a nominee. On this point I feel as strongly as Ms. Kagan that Americans be allowed equal access to serve their country in government service or otherwise. At the same time, while I believe it is always good to love other people — just as Jesus loves — for many reasons unrelated to this discussion, I do not believe in gay marriage, or that any commitment other than one man – one woman constitutes marriage, as it has always been traditionally defined. Ms. Kagan’s ban on military recruiters on the Harvard campus was wrong, inappropriate and unjustified, whether done in protest of military policy, or for any other reason. It constituties questionable judgment, which is a legitimate factor to consider in her nomination. As for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, this should no longer be just a matter of yours or my unenlightened opinion. It’s been in effect for 15 years or so. That’s enough time to develop rather clear empirical data. Does it, or does it not impair morale in the military; does it add to, detract from, or have no impact on overall military effectiveness and operations? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but surely they should guide whether to continue or revise the policy. The general principle that gays have the same rights as anyone else to serve should stand, unless it interferes with others’ rights to serve, or impedes practical military operations. Then the matter becomes more complicated than just a consideration of one group’s “rights” and so, policy requires more nuance. As D.P. Moynihan once stated, “We all are entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts.” Facts matter, and should guide opinion and policy.

First of all, you make it sound like Kagan took it upon herself to ban military recruiters when she was in charge at Harvard. She continued a ban based on the law school’s policy of non-discrimination that had been in place for over 20 years. She supported the policy. She defended it in court and won, then lost before the SCOTUS. Similar policies were in place at many of the nation’s top schools. Her opposition to DADT is supported by a large majority of Americans.
Anyway, to the main point. Sexual orientation should not be a factor in employment. That’s a goal of the “gay agenda”. Quite a few of Maggie Gallagher’s confreres disagree vehemently and have been quite rude about it, even more rude than some commenters here.
Kagan’s sexual orientation should not matter, but silence about it does. The 4500-word Times piece is just plain odd. The lack of any details about her personal life is puzzling. I’ve read profiles of people who put work before their personal lives. Those profiles say so-and-so never married, putting career and work foremost in their lives. So-and-so loves dogs. So-and-so is very close to so-and-so’s nieces and nephews. 4500-word profiles don’t just say “she’s single” and leave it at that. Not in the Times.
[Mind you, I actually would prefer that approach. I call it the Soviet attitude. They never tried to personalize their leaders until near the end, to the extent that the CIA often had no idea if some Politburo members where married, had children or not.]
Dean of a Law School is a very social position. There’s a lot of entertaining. In America, it’s odd for a hostess not to have a date. It’s odd for no one to notice.
If she’s a workaholic with no social life and has never had any romantic interests and lives alone with a tabby or two, that’s fine. Even as a dog lover, I would have no objection to the first cat-fancy-American sitting on the Supreme Court. But if she has a social life and it is being hidden, that is a serious problem.

Totally off topic, but I needed to post it somewhere. Does the absence of a Captcha box mean I’ve been banned? I’m posting this from a different computer from the one I’ve mostly used for commenting. (I guess if the Captcha box goes away here, too, I’ll know the answer to that question.)

jg 12:
A person’s sexual orientation has absolutely NOTHING to do with their qualifications to do any job…including that of justice on the Supreme Court of this country, (the USA). Why would anyone interviewing Ms. Kagan ask her about her sex life?? In your last interview (assuming you do work), did the employer ask you if you were gay or not? If the Republicans bring that subject up, they are foolish.
BTW, sexual orientation isn’t chosen. Those who disagree with that find it easier to believe that so they can use their Biblical interpretations to condemn homosexuality.
We certainly should NOT care whether or not she is gay. In case it hasn’t occured to you (and some others) just because a woman is a career woman and not married doesn’t indicate anything in the way of a woman’s sexual orientation….or for that matter just because a man isn’t married doesn’t indicate sexual orientation.
The fact that this has even been brought up is ridiculous.

Don’t tase me, bro, I can’t comment on your status. But when a web browser acts weird clearing the cookies and cache often helps.

Re: For some youths a member of the Supreme Court could become a lifestyle role model.
You’ve got to be kidding.
In any case, I don’t think homosexuality is necessarily immoral, and nor do most Americans these days (including many Christians). Homosexuality is in no way comparable to acoholism, drug addiction or adultery.
But even if you don’t agree, since when did we only support supreme court justices with whom we agreed on everything?

If it is not relevant that a nominee to the high court is heterosexual, then it cannot be relevant that they aren’t. How anyone can support discrimination based on something so immutable and personal is beyond me.

Lancelot Lamar does a good job getting to the point. Any Obama nominee — heterosexual or homosexual — was going to be ideologically gay. So, for that reason, Kagan’s sexual orientation is beside the point. Her having sex with women isn’t going to make her any worse a pick than any alternative Obama nominee was always going to be. Nor does it make her ideologically any more gay.

A friend e-mailed today to ask if I was going to blog about the possibility of Kagan being gay, and whether or not it mattered. No, I told him, because the threads on gay questions always get crazy. But later, reading all the serious and interesting commentary elsewhere on the web about this question, I thought maybe I’d been too hasty to self-censor.
I should have stuck with my instincts. This thread is closed.