Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is she or isn't she? Let's ask her (Kagan and lesbianism)
American Family Association ^ | May 10, 2010 | Bryan Fischer

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?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: degeneracy; deviancy; gaygan; homosexualagenda; issheorisntshe; manhater
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
If someone's personal conduct doesn't reflect their characer, than what does? If a Justice nominee was a known LSD user, we would surely question their reasoning abilities. If they can't tell the difference between the male and female gender, doesn't that raise similar alarm bells? There is something deeply insane about a plump woman who uses another menacing looking, short-haired, man-hating 'female' as her sex partner and 'husband'. How have we gone this far off track?
1 posted on 05/10/2010 9:36:28 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
"She cannot be kept closeted not only from the public but from the inquiring minds of the media."

Oh, puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze...

2 posted on 05/10/2010 9:39:04 AM PDT by jessduntno (Kagan...Fili-bust her. Bork her. Bork her hard. She needs it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Don’t forget that as dean of Harvard’s law school she banned military recruiters because she considered the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” bigoted.

If she’s so opposed to “don’t ask don’t tell” she needs to prove it.


3 posted on 05/10/2010 9:40:14 AM PDT by BuckyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
Given the discussion that has already taken place about this, she ought to just say whether it's so or not. It's bound to come out (sorry) sooner or later.

4 posted on 05/10/2010 9:41:11 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

being homosexual is not shameful?

who wrote that?!


5 posted on 05/10/2010 9:42:06 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

She does need to openly proclaim her status as a fornicator. After all, isn’t she “proud” of her fornication?


6 posted on 05/10/2010 9:42:09 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Is there really a question here? As a liberal, I would expect that it would have an impact on her judgment, but then again I would oppose all liberals to the Supreme Court, whether she was a lesbian or not.


7 posted on 05/10/2010 9:43:30 AM PDT by kevinm13 (Tim Geithner is a tax cheat. Manmade "Global Warming" is a HOAX!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
She may not be able to admit it either, because it could cost her a Supreme Court post.

Ha!

In this Senate, it will be a big plus.

8 posted on 05/10/2010 9:44:52 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

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?

_______________________________________________

Of course they will. Trouble is, there are very few SoCons in DC.

I’m waiting for the RINO’s to join the dems and gush all over her and then confirm her without delay.


9 posted on 05/10/2010 9:46:02 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

LSD is also illegal...


10 posted on 05/10/2010 9:46:06 AM PDT by Revenge of Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevinm13

she forbid the military from recruiting at harvard law because of her personal view that homosexuals should be allowed to use the military as a dating service.

The supreme court struck down her ban 9 to zero.

where does she stand on homosexual based marriage?

homosexuals taking children?

Does a child have one mother and one father or just “two whatever”?


11 posted on 05/10/2010 9:46:11 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

Obama would probably love to take credit for appointing the first openly homosexual member of the Supreme Court, and figure on her getting confirmed because the Republican senators would be afraid of being accused of bigotry...but his big theme for the 2010 elections is going to be “Republicans are racists” rather than “Republicans are anti-gay.”


12 posted on 05/10/2010 9:47:03 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

She wants to get on the Supreme Court lickety-split.


13 posted on 05/10/2010 9:47:23 AM PDT by isthisnickcool (NOVEMBER-2-2010!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckyKat

She also needs to be told that, regardless of her sexual orientation, if confirmed, it’s the Constitution that she must consider. Not her sexual desires. This needs to be stated in the hearings and if she violates this, impeachment proceedings should take place and she needs to be told this in public.


14 posted on 05/10/2010 9:48:19 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
If Obama wants to embrace this issue, I say fine and dandy. He'll wish he hadn't.

15 posted on 05/10/2010 9:48:24 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BuckyKat

She is a idiot. Don’t ask, don’t tell was to protect her gay friends in the military.


16 posted on 05/10/2010 9:49:26 AM PDT by OafOfOffice (W.C:Socialism:Philosophy of failure,creed of ignorance,gospel of envy,the equal sharing of misery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

She certainly looks like a muff diver to me, but just as bad, she’s a part of zero’s gang of misfits.


17 posted on 05/10/2010 9:49:54 AM PDT by Frenchtown Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

18 posted on 05/10/2010 9:53:13 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

I have no problem with a closeted gay. Sexual preferences should be a private matter. It’s the openly gay person who is an activist - and any activist on the Supreme Court is a danger to the Constitution.


19 posted on 05/10/2010 9:53:33 AM PDT by chickadee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RC2

Why should she care about the Constitution? For the last 75 years liberals haven’t. Ever since the Supreme Court had the temerity to declare some of the New Deal legislation unconstitutional, getting their agenda through has trumped everything else.


20 posted on 05/10/2010 9:56:43 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson