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?
Ah Yes I remember the threat that one’s “johnson” would be tied to a foot locker with a 10 foot rope and thrown out a second floor barracks window. No worries here but it was a chilling story.
Perfect!
read later
If a man were nominated to the Supreme Court who was straight, a husband and father, a member of a Chjristian congregation, a Military veteran, and a good-looking and congenial guy --- but had that same attitude opposing "Don't ask/don't tell" --- I'd oppose him.
If a short-haired scowling apparently-not-heterosexual woman SUPPORTED "Don't ask/don't tell" I might well support her.
What matters is the ideology. And the most dangerous lefty-ideologues are the ones who look like us.
In other words, what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of our concern?
BS. Total unadulterated BS.
Besides, who here wants a return to DA/DT?
That is unacceptable BS too.
The essential virtue needed in every judge, though, is an exact and firm sense of justice. And here Kagan fails. Kagan thinks "discrimination against gays and lesbians" is inherently morally wrong and an injustice. She apparently is blind to the fact that open homosexual conduct is incompatible with military decorum and discipline, and that sexual deviants should not be put in proximity with squads of young men(or women), let alone be in a chain of command. So no, I'm not going to demand to know with whom, or in what way she satisfies whatever sexual appetite she may or may not have.
And yes, I do want to keep the whole gay agenda out of the military.
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.