[Responsibility2nd]

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

There are all kinds of vices which, while we despise them, have no necessary impact on the performance of a public trust. Violations against chastity and sobriety, for instance ---quite unaggressively, privately, and off the job --- bother us inasmuch as the fate of the persons' eternal soul is concerned, but have negligable relevance to the function of a judge.

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.