Kagan and the White House has done nothing but ignore the topic and rightfully so. This is one of those topics that regardless of one's response to the question, both sides will get upset about it.
If they say she is a lesbian, the conservative groups will probably try to secede from the Union again based on their ability to overreact to every little detail and on the other end of the spectrum will start throwing parties in the streets that we finally have someone proud enough to say "Yes I am" while holding one of the most important positions in our nation.
If they say no, most people will believe she is anyway, just because that's how non-trusting our society is nowadays. But at least the reactions won't be over-reactions.
So what's the point in responding? It only makes people angry or judgmental no matter what is responded.
And that's the problem with this country. We preach acceptance and freedom but we make people afraid to earn both. Both sides (liberals and conservatives) are guilty of this, as well as all those in the middle. Whether you agree with the gay or lesbian lifestyle should have no bearing on whether or not Kagan deserves to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
It should be about her credentials as a judge. Tell me what's in her employment and ruling history, not her taste in men or women. I don't care about that.
The conservative response is predictable. "But she'll get to rule on topics like gay marriage and if she's gay she's going to be biased!" Well duh. But so will Bubba Jo from Alabama. It's a liberal president nominating a liberal judge. Most liberal judges are going to rule in favor marriage equality. Her being gay or not won't change the way she rules.
Remember when people used to emigrate to America from countries which persecuted them for their beliefs or their lifestyles? Isn't it a little scary to realize that we're one of those countries now?
Although the picture may have first been published by the WSJ, it is we Americans who are to blame for the fervor it created. We are too quick to judge a book by its cover. I do not pretend to know the motivations of the WSJ though. If they follow their historical pattern of bias in favor of the rich elitists of our capitalistic society, then they very well may have intended to bring her sexual orientation to question, although in my mind it is irrelevant. What is relevant however is if her views are representative of a core group of Americans? Her viewpoints are going to be difficult to decipher though. Unlike many other Supreme Court Nominees she has no history as a judge, so how she will make decisions has to be gleaned from how she conducted her life. What has been reported about her is that she has a unique ability to bring people of opposing viewpoints together for a common good. For that skill alone I think she would make a positive contribution to the judicial body that decides on issues that affect our daily lives. Hell, I can even relate to her attraction to women as well…..
ReplyDelete