Her personal sexual preferences should not be an issue, per se. But how they influence her thinking on Constitutional issues IS.
But, since she was never a judge, we have no idea where she stands with respect to any homosexuality related issues, aside from the ROTC issue, which is not a good sign.
I beg to differ. We have no idea where she stands? Her "personal sexual preferences" are a dot we must not use to make connections? If she's gay, I for one have a very good idea where she stands. I should have such clues at Hialeah.
Moreover, personal sexual preferences were very much relevant and permissible when Clarence Thomas was being grilled like spare rib on a spit.