Posted on 05/10/2010 9:36:28 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
Speculation continues to swirl about the sexual preference of likely Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. She is apparently out to her friends and others in her academic and social circles, but not out to the public at large.
The White House has flatly stated that she is not gay, which could prove a tad embarrassing if the open secret of her lesbianism is confirmed at some point. If she's a lesbian, it is going to become public knowledge, and the White House will simply have some more egg on its already yoke-splattered face.
Elena Kagan, if nominated today, will be forced to face the press. She cannot be kept closeted not only from the public but from the inquiring minds of the media. They have a solemn responsibility to do one thing: ask her directly and openly and in front of the American people: Are you a lesbian?
A refusal to answer is a tacit admission of guilt. But she may not be able publicly to deny she's a lesbian, likely because it's true. She may not be able to admit it either, because it could cost her a Supreme Court post. So she's likely to refuse to answer the question at all, and the only plausible explanation for her evasion would be because rumors of her lesbianism aren't rumors at all but based in fact.
Think about it for a minute. If you were falsely accused of engaging in sexually aberrant behavior, would you waste a single minute challenging such a scurrilous rumor?
Even lesbian websites are agreeing with me about the importance of Ms. Kagan declaring herself on this matter. For instance, from LezGetReal, "A Gay Girl's View on The World:"
"If she is not a lesbian, she needs to come out and say it, and put to rest the rumours and concerns. If she is gay, I believe she needs to say that too, and quickly. While being gay is not a shameful thing, being chased out of the closet can certainly make a person appear weak and lacking in integrity."
I expect the White House is in full lockdown mode this morning, trying to figure out how to finesse the subject of her sexual preference, exploring all the possible scenarios - including the one that they told a flat-out lie when they said she was straight - and counting on a morally benumbed America to give them a pass on an important moral question.
One qualification for public office is personal character, and nothing speaks to character more than the choices one makes when it comes to sexual conduct. Bill Clinton convinced an entire generation of America's youth that oral sex isn't really sex, and as a result we've seen an explosion among millenials in cancers of the throat and head caused by the HPV virus, which is spread through oral-genital contact.
It's time we got over the myth that what a public servant does in his private life is of no consequence. We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility, especially when that individual could become one of nine votes in an out of control oligarchy that constantly usurps constitutional prerogatives to unethically and illegally legislate for 300 million Americans.
The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?
Obama has an ultra liberal agenda - which has been revealed - and still some don’t believe it of him. Brown’s agenda would have become apparent early on. The people of California must have wanted what Governor Moonbeam was selling.
Californians thought he was extension of his dad. He is only AG now because of big labor. His being gay is a conflict of interest right now and few know he is gay.
Well then, 0bagger will have to explain his sexual “status” before his buddies get really mad and demand a TSA equipment demonstration to see if he has the right package.
Isn't that Chazz Bono now?
Being gay is a conflict of interest? Then how can one explain Log Cabin Republicans?
Implying that because one is gay means s/he has a radical liberal agenda, seems a bit like the left’s attitude that African Americans must be Democrats or they cannot be black.
I told my husband she looked like a cross between Janet Napolitano and Chastity Bono.
ROTFLABO! This is absolutely hilarious!
No more than 5 Republicans will vote against her.
You know the Maine RINO Twins will vote for her.
bfl
Being gay and not upholding Prop 8 is a conflict of interest. Brown took a oath to uphold California’s Constitution. In this instance he has refused because his lifestyle is more important than the peoples vote. Yes, it is a huge conflict to decide when you will adhere to the Constitution and when you will not.
I do not believe all gays are ultra liberal. I have met quite a few conservatives.
What gay republican went against the Constitution or the people's vote?
After watching her speak my gaydar was going off loudly.
Maybe that is why Ahmadine-jihad never wants to sit down with Obama without preconditions.
I agree. She should out herself; instead of using pretty flowery phrases to describe her. We all know they are hiding things about her which will be brought forth whether she is given the green light or not.
They pretend to wonder why we want to rid ourselves of Congress and Obama.
Interesting choice of words ;-)
Ahmadi-Nejad will sit with 0bama under the following conditions:
1- A rule when they meet: Don't touch, don't kiss 2- Plexiglass in between when in conference
Those are the kinds of questions she needs to answer under oath.
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.