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 ...
Which sex she enjoys f****** is irrelevant.
Yeetch! Bad case of walrus neck in that photo.
Mercy, Good Sir! Please consider an eyeball alert before posting such visual pollution. Speaking of such, do you have a point source permit for that pic?
You forgot about one thing:
According to Barack Obama, justice should NOT be blind. So she’s permitted to hold a bias between plantiff and defendent in the name of “social justice”.
We all know that it doesn’t matter what the American public wants anymore. Our overlords in Congress would allow a mentally ill person to be on the Supreme Court because its politically correct to do it, and there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it because it’s going to happen before we can vote the bums out.
Its Pat, from SNL years ago.
I wondered whatever became of it!
It’s like asking if Nappy at DHS is lesbian. This Kagan queer looks like male transvestite try to look feminine.
So what WAS Pat?
It just seems a coincidence that all the Marxist,communist,socialist,liberal,tax-cheating people that Obama has chosen to work in his administration are sexual deviants.
Sounds about right.
Is she the walrus that the Beatles wrote of?
If she were a conservative the media would assume the public has a right to know.
Because she is identified with a liberal president, the issue is somehow off limits.
I’d like to see some consistency here. I know I should expect none, though.
No matter if IT had an addadicktome or not... Cgaz is gay.
LLS
I’ll believe that’s a guy when I start seeing some 5 O’clock shadow.
Yes, I know that is the general thinking these days of defining deviancy downward.
I vaguely remember a sketch they used to do of a person who was gender neutral. There is an uncanny reselmblance. I’ve never posted an image and can’t from behind my company firewall, so if anyone out there recalls the ‘Its Pat’ sketches from the golden years (Aykroyd, Belushi, Radner, Curtin, Morris) of SNL, and can post an image that would be great. Thanks...
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.