Does it Matter if Elana Kagan is a Lesbian?

To some people the answer is Yes. To the Christian right-wing, some GOP and some gays it does matter for obviously different reasons. Stephanie Mencimer at Mother Jones asks, Why Do So Many People Think Elena Kagan Is Gay?

Monday, after the news leaked about Kagan's nomination, religious conservative groups took to the Internets with multiple calls for Kagan to out herself. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, a court-martialed military chaplain who now runs an anti-gay website, circulated a press release citing anonymous student reviews on Epinions as proof that Kagan is gay. Peter LaBarbera at Americans for Truth About Homosexuality blasted out a press release calling on Kagan to answer the question: "Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual?" He wrote, "in an era of ubiquitous pro-gay messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it's ridiculous that Americans should be left guessing as to whether a Supreme Court nominee has a special, personal interest in homosexuality. Given the important homosexual-related issues coming before the Supreme Court, Kagan should say so if she has a personal interest in lesbianism."

But it wasn't just homophobic right-wingers calling on Kagan to address her sexual orientation directly. Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan spent a good part of the day suggesting that the administration is defending the closet by not answering questions about Kagan's sexuality, and then defending his suggestion that Kagan come out. Sullivan, who's openly gay, wrote, "Is Obama actually going to use a Supreme Court nominee to advance the cause of the closet (as well as kill any court imposition of marriage equality)? And can we have a clear, factual statement as to the truth? In a free society in the 21st Century, it is not illegitimate to ask. And it is cowardly not to tell."

What is it that tweaks some peoples' curiosity?

It's her hair, right? Or perhaps her stout physique? It's hard to pin it down exactly, but there is something about Obama's latest Supreme Court pick that has made the "alleged lesbian" label stick, despite unambiguous statements from the administration that Elena Kagan is most definitely straight. [...]

Overall, the case for her gayness seems to rest on a pretty thin argument that goes something like this:

• She kicked military recruiters off the Harvard Law campus because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
• She looks like a lesbian.
• She's single and childless, has been known to smoke cigars and play poker.
• She looks like a lesbian.
• Jeffrey Toobin won't say whether she brought a date to his wedding.

That's it. You could make a better case that Kagan is simply a celibate workaholic, given the paucity of information that's leaked out about her personal life thus far.

Similar whisper campaigns swirled briefly around Justice Sonia Sotomayor when she was nominated last summer. Like Kagan, Sotomayor was also single and childless. But Sotomayor had a few things going for her to help quash the rumors. For one, she had once been married to her high school sweetheart. But she also had the rather embarrassing experience of appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her 1997 confirmation hearing for a spot on the 2nd Circuit and gushing profusely about Peter White, whom she introduced as her fiancé. She was reportedly devastated when the relationship fizzled.

But really, what powerful woman in Washington hasn't been accused of being a lesbian? Condoleezza Rice, Harriet Miers, Janet Napolitano, Janet Reno—they've all at one time or another been the victim of whisper campaigns about their sexuality. And of course there's Hillary Clinton. Wingnuts have been accusing the Secretary of State of secretly lusting after women for decades now.

As Richard Kim notes, Kagan's sexual orientation is irrelevant.

Just once I'd like to see this double-standard—complicated in Kagan's case by the perception that she's in the closet—applied to straight white men. Tell me, Judge Roberts, about your heterosexual life experiences? How do you think your bountiful virility will affect your opinions about privacy?

It shouldn't matter if Elana Kagan is heterosexual, homosexual or asexual. It is her mind we should be inquiring about not her sexuality. Once again, we need to take the government out of our bedrooms.

Americans Need to Grow Up!

President Obama nominated solicitor general Elana Kagan to fill Justice Steven's seat. The right-wing predictably have found numerous reasons for opposing her nomination. There are also many progressives who have offered reasons why Kagan shouldn't be the nominee. In analyzing both the right and left arguments, a pattern has appeared.

On the left, the arguments against Kagan are based on the perception that she is a blank slate. Because her opinions have not been framed, she might swing the Supreme Court to the right of center. Also there is a concern that she would not be able to fill the liberal shoes of Justice Stevens. These concerns are all based on her opinions or the lack of a record for her opinions.

On the right, the arguments against Kagan run the gambit: she lacks judicial experience; she is "hostile to the military" and allegedly banned recruiters from the Harvard campus; and that she is a lesbian and ‘no lesbian is qualified’ to sit on the SCOTUS. These concerns have no relevance as to her opinions but are based solely on allegations and innuendo.

The far-right talking heads have also begun the ugliness of the right-wing attack machine against Kagan.

The confirmation process for Sonia Sotomayor was characterized by sexist and racist attacks. Unfortunately, as soon as Obama announced Kagan's nomination yesterday, many conservatives showed that they want to go down the same path.

Hate radio host Rush Limbaugh said that he didn't "need to go too deep in analyzing the babe" and commented, "I guess she can change her mind. She's a woman."

The far-right American Family Association urged the media to ask Kagan, "Are you a lesbian?" because "no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court." For the record, Kagan has not publicly commented on her private life, and the White House has criticized commentators for "applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers."

Republican lawmakers plan on using Kagan to protest Obama's larger agenda, saying that they will press her to comment on the frivolous lawsuits to declare health care reform unconstitutional.

Conservative activists are urging senators to also "drag the confirmation fight out until the August congressional recess, to eat up precious time Democrats need to round out their agenda."

To top if all off, the RNC hit Kagan for endorsing the view of Marshall, the nation's first African-American Supreme Court justice, that the original U.S. Constitution was "defective." Of course, Marshall was referring to the fact that the original document endorsed slavery.

Viscous rumors and allegations do not help the process advance. There are individuals on the right who believe that it is "legitimate, indeed mandatory, to grill minority (or perceived minority) nominees about their personal experiences and to force them to answer how those experiences would affect their views of the Constitution." Richard Kim from the Nation raises this issue of a double standard.

Just once I'd like to see this double-standard—complicated in Kagan's case by the perception that she's in the closet—applied to straight white men. Tell me, Judge Roberts, about your heterosexual life experiences? How do you think your bountiful virility will affect your opinions about privacy?

There are many Democrats who highly support the Kagan nomination and base this on her intellect, her broad understanding of constitutional issues and her ability to listen to both sides before rendering an opinion.

Have there been any Republicans who have analyzed the Kagan nomination on an intellectual basis rather than a gut reaction?

It is time for Americans to recognize the need of different voices to argue an issue based on the merits. Versus, the exaggeration and ugliness of attacking a difference of opinion solely based on hate, racism or intolerance.

Democracy for Sale!

The Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations can contribute to federal campaigns.

Pursuant this this ruling the progressive PR firm Murray Hill Inc. has announced that it "plans to satirically run for Congress in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th congressional district to protest the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision."

Gil Ross says that "since the $upremes took a $tupid pill, and decided that a corporation is a 'person' entitled to 1st Amendment rights, let's just eliminate the middle-man, and really get the best government money can buy."

Think Progress has more of the story.

A press release on its website says that the company wants to “eliminate the middle man” and run for Congress directly, rather than influencing it with corporate dollars:

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

“The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?” [...]

Campaign Manager William Klein promises an aggressive, historic campaign that “puts people second” or even third. “The business of America is business, as we all know,” Klein says. “But now, it’s the business of democracy too.” Klein plans to use automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and computer-generated avatars to get out the vote.

Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”

Murray Hill Inc. released its first campaign video Monday. A narrator in the video explains, “The way we see it, corporate America has been the driving force behind Congress for years. But now it’s time we got behind the wheel ourselves.”

Murray Hill Inc's spokesman Eric Hansel was recently interviewed by Thom Hartman non his radio show. Hansel explained to Hartmann that his company chose to run in the Republican primary because the GOP is more sympathetic to corporations.

Murray Hill Inc. is launching the campaign with a website, Facebook page and YouTube video.