Should Kagan come out?

[AzNick]

She never did but so did her partner, apparently.

I would not mind a GLBT Justice, but would love an openly GLBT Justice.

[TomCADem]

1. Just Because She Supports Gay Rights and the Repeal of DADT Does Not Mean She Is A Lesbian

I think many on this this board support the repeal of DADT, but that does mean that they are gay.

[FreeState]

17. "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage" - Elena Kagan

Im not to sure she is pro-equality. She may be on a personal level, but it appears she does not believe the constitution demands it.

In response to a question from Sen. John Cornyn (at page 28 of her Senate Judiciary Questionnaire), Kagan stated flat out that there was no constitutional right for same sex couples to marry (emphasis mine):

1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.
Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/05/supreme-irony-kagan-nomination-ends-gay.html

[gateley]

2. I don't think she should -- at least not until she's sitting on the Court. It would

give the Republicans one more excuse not to support her and they'd whip up a hell of a media circus.

Once she's in, fuck 'em.

ETAL: My response is assuming you are aware for a fact she's a lesbian. I honestly haven't heard anything either way.

[bluestateguy]

3. Her partner?

Where was this?

[grantcart]

7. A comment on a NY Times blog seemed to indicate it was widely known at Harvard

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/no-lesbian-on-supreme-court-shortlist-maybe-maybe-not.html

Discussion of Kagan's sexuality (I haven't been able to find any reference to her being publicly out) can be found easily via a Google search. Here's one comment from a recent NYT thread:

"Why are people pretending that Elena Kagan is not a lesbian. She’s not out but that does not change her sexual orientation. She has a female partner. This is an open secret at Harvard Law School among students and faculty. I cannot speak for the broader legal community yet, but I’d have to believe her professional colleagues know as much or more than the students and professors she works with. The real irony would be if she did not get the nomination because she is not open, when the conventional wisdom has always been she has tiptoed through life in the closet for the very sake of winning a confirmation."

[Unvanguard]

8. An anonymous comment does not prove much.

I find the rumor plausible, and it would not surprise me if it were true, but it doesn't seem to have much clear evidence behind it.

[TheWraith]

4. What does "in" and "out" mean in this context?

From what I understand of her situation, it's not exactly a secret that Kagan has a girlfriend, she just doesn't advertise her private life to the public or the media. That should not be considered the same thing as being in the closet.

[Unvanguard]

5. If she's actually a lesbian, yes, after she is confirmed.

In a matter-of-fact way so that it can't be exploited (or can only be minimally exploited) by homophobic conservatives.

[acme journalist]

6. The only thing Kagan should "come out" about is...

...whether or not she's a neoconservative only about certain things, or about lots of things?

Supreme Court Stuff: Elena Kagan Is Cool With More Gitmos

[Scuba]

9. I'd love to see the Republicans take that on during confirmation hearnings.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. No. Not now.

Post-confirmation: absolutely.

Since she hasn't "told" so far.... they ( the evildoers) should be made to "ask".


It will be interesting in the extreme to see how she deals with it if they do.

[lillypaddle]

11. It's not anybody's business

and besides, what difference does it make?

[beyurslf]

12. It could make all the difference in the world to the 15yo girl at home with

homophobic parents who tell here being gay will ruin her life and she will be no one.

[lillypaddle]

13. Granted, but being realistic ...

it's important to get her on the court first. I hope that some day one's sexual preference will not be a factor one way or the other.

[Toasterlad]

14. No One's Sexual Preference IS an Issue

Sexual ORIENTATION, on the other hand, continues to be an issue, sadly.

Being realistic, I don't want a closeted, non-progressive lesbian on the Supreme Court. I want an out, proud, progressive gay person on the Supreme Court. I don't care if Kagan's nomination is successful or not.

[lillypaddle]

20. Poor choice of words on my part

But what's your ultimate goal? Some feel good moments of "hell yeah!" or getting someone confirmed who is probably very likely pro gay rights? But you don't care if she's confirmed or not, so I guess I know the answer already. Very shortsighted in my opinion.

[Toasterlad]

21. It Doesn't Matter If She Gets Confirmed Or Not, Because Obama Will Never Nominate a Progressive

I'd be okay with her being in the closet if I thought she was a progressive, but I don't believe she is. Yes, it's nice that she's pro-gay rights, but that alone doesn't make her a Progressive.

For purely selfish reasons, I'd be okay with her on the bench, because I DO believe she'd vote for gay equality. However, in the grand scheme of things, I don't trust her to look out for the people's best interests.

[joeybee12]

15. Not until Chief Justice Roberts comes out first!

;-)

[JI7]

29. has Roberts ruled on any case involving gay rights issues yet ?

i would love for him to come out. would love to see Scalia's reaction.

[joeybee12]

36. He's not gonna...he's gone the Charlie Crist way...grew a beard, became

a coward.

[Fire1]

16. How do you know she's gay?? Assume much? n/t

[AzNick]

28. It's no secret.

She is gay, it's absolutely not a secret.

[Fire1]

37. It must be a secret b/c there's an awful lot of speculation going

on with no evidence.

[Alison Matusak]

18. the White House denies

that she is anything but a heterosexual.

Of course, we had Senator Sessions say that sexuality "may be" a disqualifier in a judicial nominee. I say bring on that fight!

[TheWraith]

33. As far as I'm aware, the White House hasn't commented on her sexuality.

Nor would there be any particular reason for them to do so.

[Q3JR4]

19. After she's confirmed she should...

assuming she is a lesbian.

We all know the repubs are not going to give her an easy time. They might even be able to stop her confirmation if they decide to hold her sexuality up as a reason to do so.

So assuming she is a lesbian, she should come out--assuming that she WANTS to do so--after the confirmation.

Q3JR4.

[Meldread]

22. **IF** she is a lesbian, it will come out.

I don't presume she is because I don't know her personally, and I don't make assumptions about peoples private lives. If she's a lesbian would I like her to be open about it? Absolutely, for all the reasons others have stated. However, when it comes to coming out that's a personal decision. It's not my decision or anyone else's, and no one should be forced out of the closet UNLESS they're working against equality for LGBT people. In which case they're hypocrites, and they should be called out as such.

Forcing someone out of the closet, who is likely pro-LGBT, is... well... it's like a cardinal sin. Coming out, as we all know, is a process. It has to be done when someone is ready, not because of some arbitrary standard set by others.

However, all the above being said... if she is a lesbian, it will come out one way or another I feel during this process. We'll find the left trying to drag her out of the closet for misguided but generally good reasons, and then we'll have the right trying to drag her out of the closet to vilify her. Ultimately, though I think if she is forced out of the closet (assuming she is a lesbian), and then the right tries to make an issue out of it that it will backfire. While most of the country isn't keen on gay marriage, a sizable majority isn't too keen on out right discrimination against LGBT people either. They don't see us as "equal" in the relationship department, but when it comes to discriminating against gays and lesbians for a job? It won't fly with anyone but the far right. Just like the vast majority of Americans support the repeal of DADT.

[ruggerson]

23. How should the press cover it? Should they lie by ommission

if, for the sake of discussion, she is gay and has had a partner for many years and journalists know this to be the case.

Should the press be complicit in keeping her in the closet?

[Meldread]

24. A tricky question, but it's the job of the press to report.

Under normal circumstances, the answer would be that it isn't really relevant. Why report something that is irrelevant, after all, you don't normally hear reports about the spouses of other nominees. They may come forward and speak on their own, but in general, they're not really relevant unless they're doing something that could be seen as a conflict of interest to a potential Justice.

We know that the gay marriage issue is likely to be before the Supreme Court sooner or later. If she is a lesbian, then it could be seen by some as to be relevant.

In the end, though, if Republican's bring it up and try and use it as a weapon against her, then the press should report. That's their job. Otherwise, if I was a newsroom editor, I'd say it's irrelevant. The same way nominating a female Justice doesn't automatically mean that she'll be pro-choice, or nominating a black Justice doesn't automatically mean that she'll be pro-affirmative action. In the same manner, nominating a lesbian Justice doesn't automatically mean that she'll be pro-gay marriage. It's assumed, of course, that such an individual - especially an individual nominated by a Democratic President - would be pro-all three.

I'm certain if Kagan is a lesbian then she's fully aware that it could come out sooner rather than later. Both the White House and Kagan, if she is indeed a lesbian, have likely already prepared for that eventuality. My concern was more directed at individuals here and others who want to nudge her out of the closet door. While I agree with the intent, and also agree that it would be great for her to do such a thing if she is a lesbian, I also feel that we have to respect the wishes of others. Not everyone has the desire to be on the front lines, that doesn't mean they can't help us in other ways. I said the same thing about Anderson Cooper, who we know for a fact is at the very least bi-sexual, but almost certainly gay.

Anderson is like Brian Williams in that he's a professional reporter. He's not there to be the news, he's there to pass it on to the viewer. In his role as a professional reporter, his sexuality is irrelevant - I don't know if Brian Williams is married or has kids - I assume he does, but I don't know for certain. There is no reason that Anderson, for example, should be held to a different standard than Brian.

Kagan is in a similar position as Anderson, really. As a Justice she's supposed to be non-partisan (though we all know how rare that truly is). That would mean things about Kagan, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, these things would become irrelevant and secondary to what is or is not Constitutional.

[ruggerson]

31. I disagree - I think we routinely hear about the spouses of other (straight) nominees

They are eagerly covered by the press, especially if they have a couple of cute, photogenic kids.

Roberts family was extensively covered, as were ALito's, Ginsberg's and Breyer's.

Why should there be a double standard for Kagan?

[donco6]

34. Just the fact that a man is married "outs" his heterosexuality.

But gays have to go through this soul-wrenching decision to be "out". Well, until the day someone just treats it as cavalierly as others treat straight relationships. And when the country finds that the only people who get up in arms about it are the same people who would NEVER support an Obama pick (even if it were the zombiefied body of Saint Ronnie), maybe we can finally get past all this bullshit.

[Meldread]

40. There is a very strong difference.

All the people you named trotted out their families. They were using them as a prop to help them receive conformation, at least for Roberts and Alito - I can't speak for Ginsberg and Breyer's confirmation hearings. Was Sonia Sotomayor married? I don't remember her trotting out her husband, I don't remember a girlfriend. The only member of her family that I remember being brought forward was her mother - which, like the others I mentioned, was used as a prop.

Having just done a Google search on Sotomayor I've learned that she was married but divorced back in the early 80's. Was anyone attempting to dredge up her ex-husband for comment? Is or was it relevant? No.

I'm assuming Kagan doesn't have a domestic partnership, civil union, or marriage to this supposed woman she's with - it's all speculation. If she hasn't attempted to legalize it, I don't see why it should be brought forward unless Kagan herself brings it up first. If Kagan is openly gay and brings her girlfriend to the confirmation hearing to sit behind her as Alito's wife did for him, then it could also be considered fair game.

She shouldn't be outted if she isn't out, but ultimately I think it's rather irrelevant. If there is even speculation out there the media - being nothing more than tabloid journalism - will attempt to sensationalize it as best they can for ratings and to sell papers. She'll either be forced to confirm or deny the allegations.

[JI7]

26. report it the same way one would report on anyone else

they usually mention it when giving some biographical info. x grew up .........., went on to........lives in ...... with ............... .

[ruggerson]

32. exactly, that's how I think it should be done too

[donco6]

35. Yes, exactly. n/t

[JI7]

25. I don't think she is exactly "in the closet"

i think she is like Anderson Cooper. they don't hide or deny being gay. but they don't really talk about it either.

[AzNick]

27. Or Jodie Foster...

So the answer should be "no" and then "what's the big deal?"

[JI7]

30. i hope she doesn't really say anything about it

but we see when she is sworn in her partner by her side.

[kenny blankenship]

38. I've never seen so many straights become so concerned for the privacy of a gay person!

and all of a sudden!

[QC]

39. Touching, isn't it? n/t

[Meldread]

41. Yes, I'm certain of a conspiracy.

...I just have to figure out what role I have to play in it, being that I'm gay.

I'm guessing most folks here live in fairly gay-friendly areas. For those of us who don't, it would be unthinkable to out a person who doesn't want it known to others. It's probably the worst thing you can do to another LGBT person, at least where I come from - but I'm from Virginia. Outting someone who wasn't out, or who didn't want it to be widely known (for whatever personal reason) is a guaranteed way to never be trusted by anyone again.