A rumor — apparently denied — that possible (likely?) Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is gay set the White House on a “scorched earth” attack on CBS News, where the rumor was reported in a blog. The reaction in the left-wing blogosphere has been equally hysterical.
A few key points.
First, the left has a long history of outing (allegedly) gay Republicans. One of the leading left-wing bloggers, John Aravosis, who runs AmericaBlog, made his name by outing Republicans, including defending attempts to force then RNC Chair Ken Melman to declare whether he was gay (I have no idea if he was, and I don’t care). The film Outrage attempted to out conservatives who it alleged were gay. When it suited their purposes, bloggers like Aravosis did not hesitate to spread rumors that Condoleezza Rice was gay.
The hypocrisy of the left on the subject of outing never ceases to amaze.
Second, a general policy against “outing” creates a tension where the person is being nominated to the highest court in the land with a lifetime appointment. The issue is not sexual preference, but the public’s right to know who the person is. We would not hesitate to demand disclosure of the name and biography of a spouse or heterosexual “significant other” to see if there were any potential issues or conflicts which would affect the nomination process. Should the standard be any different for Elena Kagan?
Third, it is curious that those objecting to the Kagan rumor seem to treat an accusation of being gay as a slur. One John Aravosis notes the irony and says he is neutral as to whether such reaction by the White House and other Democrats reflects homophobia.
I don’t know if I would support Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. I’ll wait to learn more about her. If she’s gay, so be it, but I will not treat that fact or rumor as a slur. And I’ll hold her to the same level of disclosure of personal relationships that we would expect of any other nominee.
——————————————–
Related Posts:
Palin Exposes Misogyny In The Democratic Base, Again
Anti-Mormonism Again In Gay Marriage Debate
Day Without A Gay — A Bad Idea Ends Badly
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Isn't it interesting that it is the left making a fuss over Kagan possibly being gay, just as they fuss over someone's skin color, gender, and ethnic origin. I wonder if their angst is a little like the "pot calling the kettle black," when it comes to phobia's on the right. I don't know anyone who would object to a "gay" nominee for anything as long s they were qualified. However, an interesting issue has arisen where te left is objecting to Kagan because she is Jewish-too many Jews for SCOTUS if she is nominated. In fact WSJ has an article out today about all the Jews and Catholics on SCOTUS. Heard a new one that Obama has to nominate a Protestant so there is balance. Is anyone besides me tired of the crap in politics and just want competent people to do their job and govern well no matter skin, ethnic, religion or sexual preference. There is something very disturbed about the left and their identification policies.
I've always thought that liberals' true feelings about blacks, gays, and females was best seen in their reactions to black, gay, or female Republicans. False "idealism" always takes a back seat to partisanship.
What's curious is that if you google "Elena Kagan gay" you get hits off of UK gay intersest sites that positively assert she is gay. (NTTIAWWT)
And since I don't really pay attention to CBS news, the WH just shot it self in the foot drawing more attention to this.
When you use the word "gay" to describe them, THEY win.
We must stop allowing them to control the conversation.
Queer is an accurate description of a group who is NOT gay, happy and cheerful.
If you just have to be politically correct call them homosexuals.
What if someone suggested that she is 25% black? Would the libs treat that as a slur or a badge of honor? Other than the libs, would anyone else care?
It is just the way libs think. They have been conditioned to not engage in substantial discussions involving facts and logic but instead have honed their instincts to immediately protest their victimhood when someone disagrees with them. The only reason anyone would disagree with them is because they are evil.
Is Oprah gay?
Is Oprah gay? It is widely reported that she is a very pleasant woman with a sunny personality. It is also widely reported that "Oprah does not do stairs". Hence it is also widely reported that she is a wide load.
The liberal thesis is that Republicans hate gays so it is relevant if a Republican is gay (because of the hypocrisy!). But Democrats don't hate gays so it is irrelevant if a Democrat is gay.
When a Republican points out that a Democrat is gay, that is an example of how Republicans hate gays. When a Democrat points out that a Republican is gay, that is an example of how Republicans are hypocrites.
Simple, no?
This hypocrisy exists because Democrats know that they depend on "this is how daddy voted, and grandaddy, and great-grandaddy, and…" to keep getting elected. The "progressive youth" wing has never been able to do more than buy bumper stickers and put "VOTE OBAMA" on their Facebook profiles.
And the Democrats are well aware that their actual base is even more religious/reactionary than the right-wing "fascists" they parody. In California, blacks and hispanics voted Democrats into office. They also voted HUGELY in favor of banning gay marriage. The Democrats know that their continued existence depends on maintaining the lie that "Dems support gays" is nothing but Republican slander.
@bruce wayne: perhaps you should get to know some gay folk before casting playground insults. i have both personal and professional contact with a large number of homosexually-oriented persons and can attest that they are some of the happiest, most cheerful, kindest, and well-adjusted people i have the pleasure of knowing.
take out your anger against those who consider suggesting that someone might be gay to be a slur.
I just want to know why people like Foley, Craig and Ashburn have promoted anti gay legislation while being gay themselves. There are senators who are now saying they would "have a problem" voting for an openly gay justice. That was the point of this "outing" by our favorite plagerist. I'm not sure why Drudge, who is gay, would be running with this. nonsense.
Lots of painting with a broad brush on this site. The stereotyping and homophobic comments speak for themselves.
"First, the left has a long history of outing (allegedly) gay Republicans. "
"The Left" doesn't exist a single monolithic thinking entity that can be hypocritical any more than "the Right" does.
Now, if you have quotes from John Aravosis or the folks who made "Outrage" saying that it's wrong to question the sexual preferences of Kagan, you'd actually have something…
But ascribing their tactics as concerns the outing of gay folks to everyone on the left is as foolish and misguided as blaming everyone at a protest for the signs, chants, and actions of the relative few who behave poorly. Some (left and right) believe in outing gay folks, and others (left and right) are opposed to it. (Me?… I'm for folks outing themselves–at this stage, I do think it helps folks realize that most gay people aren't flamboyant activists, and are instead pretty much like straight folks… Eventually, I hope it won't even be important enough to matter to much of anyone besides extremists, either way–but I'm not in favor of outing anyone against their will.)
The way I see it though, one is only a hypocrite if one says one thing when it's gay folks on their side being outed, and another when it's gay folks on the other being outed… Holding "the Left" or "the Right" responsible en mass for what a few individuals say on the subject–regardless of what it is they're saying–just doesn't pass muster…
The only person to blame (or congratulate) for what John Aravosis says is John Aravosis and the individuals who quote him approvingly. I fail to see how his words make everyone on "the Left" hypocrites… (And of course, the same goes for William A. Jacobson–or any other individual on the right–and "the Right," as a whole.)