Skip to comments.So Is She Gay?
Posted on 05/10/2010 10:31:35 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish. We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. And yet we have been told by many that she is gay ... and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively.
In a word, this is preposterous - a function of liberal cowardice and conservative discomfort. It should mean nothing either way. Since the issue of this tiny minority - and the right of the huge majority to determine its rights and equality - is a live issue for the court in the next generation, and since it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice's sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified. It's especially true with respect to Obama. He has, after all, told us that one of his criteria for a Supreme Court Justice is knowing what it feels like to be on the wrong side of legal discrimination. Well: does he view Kagan's possible life-experience as a gay woman relevant to this? Did Obama even ask about it? Are we ever going to know one way or the other? Does she have a spouse? Is this spouse going to be forced into the background in a way no heterosexual spouse ever would be?
(Excerpt) Read more at andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com ...
According to the media, everyone is “gay”...and socialist.
Oh please. All Kagan needs is the gigantic ring full of keys on her garrison belt to complete the picture.
BTW, how come our dykes look like Tammy Bruce, and their dykes all look like Jimmy Hoffa? Just asking.
I thought of at least two jokes.....
Better left untold...I'm thinking.
She looks like Paul Blart: Mall Cop.
The question arises naturally in the mind of even the most disinterested observer - after just one look. I love the way that Andrew Sullivan - openly homosexual - feels that he is privileged to ask the question - but would savage anyone the right who might have raised it.
If she wants an END to “don’t ask, don’t tell” then why isn’t so also so forthcoming? It’s like the lavender mafia in the media who have a vested interest in the issue but are unwilling to step out of the closet in their anchor chairs.
Absolutely... is Chaz Bono gay... is oprah gay... you know they are!
Just because she likes flannel shirts and softball is no reason to jump to conclusions.
Who cares? I’m more concerned with her legal abilities and position on issues. We already know that as a lib she would support gay rights regardless of whether she is or not.
I don’t care if she’s Jewish. I don’t care if she’s gay. I care about her politics and how or if they are going to inform her judicial decisions. That’s what we have to be focused on. My guess is that anybody who passed muster with Obama is going to be seriously bad for the country, but not specifically because they are gay, Jewish, brunette, short, Martian-American, etc. (I know conservative gays and Jews, some on this forum. Not acquainted with any Martian-Americans AFAIK so I can’t pass judgment there.)
That's leftist code-speak for "I'm going to nominate a lesbian"
Actually isn't "Chaz" considered 'Straight' now?
So is it better for someone to be openly gay, or gay but no one knows it?
The apropos question is, "does that affect her politics and judicial decision making?" Given that she's an academic and an O-hole, the answer has to be "yes."
Bull dyke. Yes, I said it.
Fred Flintstone with Wilma's necklace and ear rings.
I’m a little curious why anyone thinks it’s relevant that she’s Jewish or gay. My concern when it comes to this appointment is that Kagan is a socialist who has written shockingly anti-American commentaries, one who believes in the rule of whim rather than the rule of written law. As a fellow human being, I’m concerned regarding her salvation, but that’s not relevant to her appointment to a position that is far above the pay grade for which she is qualified. Let’s stick to the facts: she doesn’t believe the words of the Constitution are relevant to the job, so she is unqualified for a position on the Supreme COurt.
She looks like Sen. Patty Murray D-WA
“Chaz” is not gay, “Chaz” is transgendered. (S)he is trying to become a “He”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.