Sexual orientation counts as much as race or gender. It isn't a "private life"

[Prism]

It's interesting to watch the deep hypocrisy and homophobia attending Kagan's "Is she or isn't she?" lesbian question. (And don't ask Robert Gibbs, because he has no idea how to answer that question)

Here's the trouble. Many feel being a woman or even a woman of color is an asset in a Supreme Court justice. It is common thought, and a logic I share, that people with different characteristics experience society and justice differently because of how our institutions are structured to favor white, male, Christian power relationships.

President Obama himself said biography matters when evaluating who to nominate for a vacancy on the Court.

If we recognize that a woman will have a different perspective and bring a needed balance to the Court, and we recognize that a person of color will bring a different and needed balance to the Court, why is orientation considered a separate and out of bounds issue?

I assure you, my homosexuality has profoundly shaped my thinking and perceptions of the world every bit as much as my maleness or my whiteness. I could argue, because of its sharp difference from mainstream society and legal liberties, my homosexuality may actually have a disproportionate significance on how I see notions of equality and justice in America.

Orientation influences and informs decision-making every bit as much as other characteristics that distinguish us in society and culture.

The only difference is that we can typically hide our orientation.

But just because orientation is often invisible, it does not mean it is not just as significant. Because orientation is not so easily perceived, it is all the more acceptable to ask the question.

Not engage in innuendo. Not whisper. Simply ask the question.

It is not out of bounds to ask a future Supreme Court Justice of the United States about their basic information. It is no more an invasion of privacy to inquire than it is to ask a President if he or she is married, or a Congressperson if they have children. It is no more an invasion of privacy than asking me if I am married or single. It is no more an invasion of privacy than asking me about my parents.

It is a basic, central characteristic of who we are. Insisting on silence, declaring orientation a private matter and out of bounds, and insinuating there is something insidious and wrong about asking a simple question is to reveal a certain shame and homophobia and discomfort people still hold when it comes to issues of sexual orientation.

We ought to be past that shame, that discomfort, that skittishness.

It's ok to ask.

And if Kagan or Robert Gibbs or President Obama answer no, I'll take their word for it and say no more.

[msongs]

1. only if heterosexual justices are asked the same questions - were they? nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. In effect they were. How else could you know they're heterosexual?

You have walked into a familiar bog.

They were not asked by the senate only because they advertise their orientations continually so no questions were needed, not because they have a right top privacy as to whether they are married, have kids, are a woman, etc..

Seriously, think it through. If the Senate somehow did not know and could not discover if a nominee were a parent would nobody ask?

Does a nominee have a right to hide whether she is married? Of course not. It's a matter of public record. So what courtesy are we extending Kagan to say that because she might be something "bad" we ought be gracious enough not to ask.

Does Justice Roberts wear a wedding ring? Yes. What does it signify?

How many children does Scalia have? Why do I know that? Did someone intrude into his life to discover that?

Hetero culture takes itself so much for granted that many do not realize that sex, sexuality, orientation, hetero life-style are not a discreet secret. They are everywhere and everything.

But if there were a SCOTUS nominee where nobody knew if the nominee was a man or a woman and the nominee showed up to the confirmation hearing with a bag over his/her head then yes, the Senate would indeed ask a lot of questions.

[Prism]

12. You've hit upon it exactly

She might be something "bad". You nailed it.

This is about how homosexuality still carries heavy stigmatization. It is so heavily stigmatized, that a lot of people still believe that merely asking someone whether or not they're gay is a kind of accusation or smear, an unacceptable besmirching of character.

And that's what we're seeing with this topic in spades.

[Starry Messenger]

17. Exactly.

:thumbsup:

[Trillo]

18. I think you're missing a big point.

There's a certain level of humiliation involved in being asked such a question, at least in our prudish culture, and even greater humiliation in having to answer it, as well as any presumptions regarding what a refusal to answer may imply, as well as what the implications are if such as question is asked only of some. If some are not asked such a question because the answer is assumed as known, then these folks are not experiencing any humiliation as a result of being asked and having to either answer or decline. Thus, the question itself appears unfair, unless everyone is similarly asked, regardless of what is or is not presumed about individual persons.

It's your argument that disclosed sexual orientation is a needed data point for a judge? I guess I'm having trouble understanding how someone's sexual orientation is relevant to the job description.

[hfojvt]

72. what you say about hetero lifestyle not being discreet

is only true of heteros with spouses or significant others. For heteroes who have never married nor done that much dating, such as myself, and perhaps Ms. Kagan, an inactive hetero lifestyle is pretty discreet.

[EFerrari]

6. Old white men used to drag their wives into the audience

so the question was never necessary.

[leftstreet]

11. Your post makes Mrs. Alito cry

[bliss_eternal]

24. lol.

:spray:

[tammywammy]

32. lol x2

:spray:

[EFerrari]

71. LOL

Good.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. No, but nothing was made of white or male justices either.

I don't understand this issue enough to say one way or the other. On the one hand, I think sexuality is almost inherently private. But on close examination, it isn't really, is it? It's only private when it's not heterosexuality. Otherwise are expected to talk about their spouses and kids. On the other, Prism is correct in that having an openly gay justice on the court would be equivalent to a Sandra Day O'Connor or a Thurgood Marshall--the first time a neglected minority group has a voice. Growing up a persecuted minority has an effect on people and certainly must shape them in some way.

[tavalon]

16. As a personally interesting aside,

I talk about my spouses all the time and almost no one has figured out that some of the stories can't be about the same guy. People easily make the wrong assumptions in my case and it's to my advantage so I use it. I don't need my co-workers to know I'm poly but neither do I want to seem standoffish and unwilling to have watercooler talk about my family.

[Prism]

9. No one had to ask. Their heterosexuality isn't invisible n/t

[ProSense]

20. You can tell if someone is heterosexual?

Really?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. When presenting themselves as such, generally so.

As long as you think sexual identity is all about fucking you will not get this.

I cannot tell which married men may have sex with men but I can tell that men wearing wedding rings and mentioning something funny their wife said are heterosexual in terms of social role.

I know some pretty flamboyant gay men and I know they are gay. I do not, however, know whether they have sex with men. Probably, but I don't know that.

[ProSense]

61. "As long as you think sexual identity is all about fucking you will not get this."

What a ridiculous statement, which shows you absolutely cannot grasp the implications of what is being discussed.

[Prism]

73. And you cannot grasp how orientation is publicly cited every single day by heterosexuals

You bet, the majority of the time, a heterosexual will usually signal such pretty quickly in conversation.

You know why?

Because they're not closeted or hiding it or worried what people will think or trying to say as little as possible so as not to offend anyone or wondering if they'll be treated differently because the person across from them is a secret heterophobe.

That's the thing about not having to worry about how people will react to your orientation. You can be as free with it as you please.

And people are.

[QC]

78. Oh come now. We all know shy heterosexuals are about discussing their sexual orientation.

They never wear wedding rings or go to the prom or put pictures of their beloved all over their cubicle or talk endlessly about what they and ___ did this past weekend or go to Mardi Gras and yell "SHOW US YOUR TITS!!!" any of that stuff.

That would violate the sanctity of something very private.

[donco6]

74. Not ridiculous at all.

And it nailed it exactly.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. You put it beautifully earlier: DADT for civilian life

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. ...

[EFerrari]

7. Exactly. nt

[Prism]

10. Ruggerson deserves credit there

He put the phrase in my head during an earlier private conversation.

[Dr Morbius]

3. If it may affect the performance of the post, then it's fair to ask.

Orientation has no bearing on how well a justice will interpret the Constitution. Hence, I consider it out of bounds. Neither do questions about being married or having kids have any bearing on how well a justice will adjudicate, I would say, unless private life would necessarily intrude into public life - such as an invalid family member who might absorb a justice's time.

It's fair to ask any nominee about things they said or rulings they've made, but inquiries about private life seem wrong to me. I wouldn't ask such questions were I a Senator.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Nobody asked Souter.

[Prism]

14. It was a pre-Internet time

Back then, the MSM were the gatekeepers of polite discourse. Heck, they're still trying to embargo the question in regards to Kagan.

If Souter came up in this day and age, with the blogs and social media and message boards, I'd bet an easy $50 that we'd be having a very similar debate.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Prism]

30. Orientation involves quite a bit more than that.

Reducing the breadth of orientation to mere plumbing is offensive.

[Luminous Animal]

56. Peeking into someone's sexual orientation because we imagine we can glean some insight

is offensive.

[Prism]

79. "Peeking into"

Verbiage always gives people away. Every time.

[Hannah Bell]

15. ;>)

[ProSense]

19. This is simply bogus

"It is not out of bounds to ask a future Supreme Court Justice of the United States about their basic information."

Are you married? Do you have a boyfriend? Are you gay? Are you sleeping with anyone?

It's inappropriate and no one should have to answer these questions if they chose not to.

[dsc]

21. you don't think justices are asked if they are married?

[Luminous Animal]

23. Most likely not but I am sure you can find the testimony of several confirmation

hearings online. You get back to us if you can find the answer.

[dsc]

29. Well I know about a million trees were felled to tell about Souter

and his unmarried status back in 1991 and that we sure saw alot of Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Alito on our screens. I am presuming that someone asked who those women were.

[ProSense]

26. And if they say no, can you tell their sexuality?

If that doesn't suffice, should they be asked if they're married to or dating a man or a woman?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

34. Serious question

Can you imagine anyone having ever been confirmed as a Justice on the Supreme Court whose marital status was secret?

Do you honestly believe the question would be out of bounds if the matter was somehow murky?

"Some sources say you're a life-long bachelor while other sources say you have been married to your lovely wife Cindy for 32 years and have three children who are the light of your life... but resolving that discrepancy is obviously none of our business."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

80. Anyone???

[Prism]

35. We are asked and answer those questions all the time

Why is a Supreme Court nominee sacrosanct when it comes to questions each and everyone of us field on a regular basis?

[donco6]

75. Who has to ask when their spouses routinely join them at their swearing in?

They may choose not to bring their spouse, I suppose. But that would be kinda weird, don'tcha think? Unless you're gay. Then I guess it would be normal, because that's "private."

[struggle4progress]

25. In one way, I think you are completely correct -- and in another, completely wrong

I think you are correct in the following sense: as Americans, we should welcome freedom and diversity and authenticity; we should want people to stand up straight and tall and say without embarrassment This is who I am, and I'm not ashamed -- and there's no reason at all to deny qualified openly gay people seats on the court: in fact, I think it would be good for the country

But I think you are wrong in the following sense: even public figures really are entitled to their private lives as private lives. Why should I care whether or not Lindsey Graham is gay? Why did I need anything to hear about Bill and Monica? What business is it of mine how the Edwards' marriage is faring? Sure, the hypocrites who sniff everybody else's zippers and loudly shriek their suspicions, deserve to be ridiculed when caught with their own pants down; sure, those whose private lives become so bizarre and complex that they cannot perform their public duties, should be asked to step down for the public good. But most people usually need a private sphere, where they can kick off their shoes and leave their hair uncombed and be themselves without everyone staring in the windows at them. I don't know anything about Kagan's personal life, and I'm really not interested: if she wants to make some of her personal life public, she's free to do so; if she wants to leave it private, she should be free to do that, too

[Prism]

33. It is inextricably a part of who they are

I keep wanting to post a poll asking "Would you be ok with a closeted President?"

Biography is, rightly or wrongly, part of the equation people factor in when considering individuals for positions of high power. Politicians know this and accept this, which is why their spouses are generally omnipresent throughout campaigns, given media spreads, duties, etc. Most of the time, you cannot separate the politician's relationships from how he or she does their job.

And yet, with a potential LGBT individual, we're asked to make that separation.

I don't think "Are you gay?" is on the same level as "Are you having an affair?" yet it is treated as such.

[bliss_eternal]

37. but i wonder how many women and people of color

wish it weren't?

personally, depending on the situation i find it offensive when someone treats me as a walking uterus.
or when they find out my cultural background, suddenly i'm their *spokesperson* for all things having to do with the culture. it can feel insulting (and limiting)....what if i don't match their internal ideas about my gender? or my culture? sometimes i don't. but that just creates more questions, and "why are these people_____?"....again, insulting, and limiting--as if i can speak for anyone but me. :crazy:

i'd be lying if i said there aren't times i'd very much like the freedom (or priviledge) to opt out of that bullshit.

at the same time, i absolutely understand the implication of this issue for glbt's (and the point of the question).

[Prism]

44. Absolutely

I often end up in the same boat when there's something happening in the LGBT community that I'm not entirely on board with, but people just assume I am. Drives me batty. Or, perhaps worse, other LGBTers who make assumptions about me because I'm one too.

In a perfect world, we want to call balls and strikes precisely down the middle. But as long as we're working with a construct where gender and ethnicity are factors in how we evaluate individuals, orientation should take an equal place at their side.

I'm not sure where I stand on this, only because I'm about where you are. On the one hand, I want different perspectives on the Court. On the other, who defines the Women's Perspective or the African-American Perspective or the LGBT Perspective?

Our identities don't exactly have party platforms =)

[bliss_eternal]

51. lol!

i know, it's rough when it happens. i see it on the board all the time. one or two people want to speak for an entire group--but others take offense (of course) and say,"...hey buster--you don't speak for me!" then the fights and deletions ensue. :spray:

i'm sure there were women who hated the last justices that were female, because they disagreed w/their stances on some issues (i.e. choice, abortion). just as i know there are many african americans who don't feel at all represented by clarance thomas. but who in the court speaks for asians, american indians, disabled people, etc.?

:shrug: it really proves your point....identities don't have party platforms. :(
our system is also rather flawed (and outdated), it seems. :( back in the day, everyone was supposed to just conform to the dominant culture (hetero, caucasian, christian male). now, no one should have to. but how, and when will the selection processes catch up to who and what our diverse society looks like today?

when will people who may be glbt have the ability to state who they are, without fear of being penalized (if that is the case)?

[struggle4progress]

45. Perhaps in some abstract world you might be right. I do not know. But

put aside your righteous abstractions for a moment, and simply reflect on the fact that you cannot know woman's psychological history or what choices she might have had to make in what context. None of us have any real idea of what particular personal issues she actually confronted in becoming who she now is. Such a story (for almost anyone) is likely to be complicated: we all make choices; we all say I give up this to do that. I don't know what compromises she has made to get where she is, nor do I know what she decided to let fall by the wayside to get where she is. Those are her choices, not ours. There's no reason that I can see to make her personal psyche subservient to anyone else's political ends

[Prism]

49. But the NYT article talks about her relationship with her father

And how that may have played a role in developing her mind.

If that relationship is fair game for understanding a potential justice's influences, why not others? Did the NYT ask Ms. Kagan what is and is not allowable in their profile? It would seem to be a compromise of journalistic ethics if they allowed her to sign off on what could and could not be included.

So we are already reading about the relationships in Ms. Kagan's life.

Except this one area. Private with a capital P.

I really, honestly do not understand the shifting standards.

[struggle4progress]

54. As far as I'm concerned, she can say or not what she wants about her private life. We

didn't ask Alito whether he really had satisfying marital relations with his wife or whether she was just his beard. I don't see shifting standards here -- except that suddenly various people seem to think it's ok to ask an unmarried successful woman whether she's lesbian. Whether she is or is not, I think it's her choice to decide how she defines herself as a public figure

[KonaKane]

27. I don't think so.

Race and gender are very obvious on sight - even if one is transgender they have "picked one" and represent it in public life. Sexual orientation is not so obvious. As a gay person yourself you must realize this, I work with alot of men who most people could never pick out as gay simply by looking at them. Therefore I'm led to the conclusion that sexual orientation certainly is none of the public's business, and definitely not part of a litmus test to do the people's work.

[Prism]

36. How does perceptibility work into public's business?

Whether or not you can perceive someone's orientation doesn't mean it doesn't play into that person's thinking and perceptions of how the world works.

And with a Supreme Court justice, that's precisely what we're charged with finding out. How does this person perceive and relate to the world? What logic and thinking will they use when making decisions?

Invisibility does not render insignificance.

[KonaKane]

38. If that's the case, then they can get into your religion, choice of breakfast etc

You have opened Pandora's box to summary, subjective judgements on anything they can get about you. Not a good road to go down.

[Prism]

39. Are you really comparing the significance of orientation to cereal?

Really?

[KonaKane]

41. If you start scrutinizing all the "invisibles" that's where you're headed.

And it's not a good place to go.

[Prism]

46. No, we're scrutinizing identity

Gender, race, and orientation all have profound impacts on how a person's identity and thinking are shaped.

Cereal, not so much.

[KonaKane]

57. Identity goes beyond the obvious.

And some things about our identity, a panel scrutinizing someone for public service has no right to know.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

42. I can name the religion of every current justice

And I never sought out the information.

I know it simply from having the news on in the background a lot.

It is obviously not an out-of-bounds thing for Supreme Court justices, though it would be an out-of-bounds question in a job interview at McDonalds.

[KonaKane]

59. They would have been justified in refusing to answer that question.

About religion. There personal religious beliefs should have no bearing on them doing their jobs - and if it does, then they should recuse themselves.

[Bluebear]

43. Sexual orientation = Pop Tarts. OK. nt

[QC]

48. What about granola?

That could be revealing.

[Bluebear]

65. It's a slippery, slippery, slope.

:silly:

[KonaKane]

58. Where does it end?

moreover, what business does a Senate panel have in knowing how I like to screw - or WHO I like to screw?

[Bluebear]

64. Who you "screw" is not the same as sexual indentity, but whatever.

[ultracase24]

28. Im interested in why she filed briefs protecting the Saudi government

Last time I looked, as Solicitor General she worked for the US government, not the Saudi Royal family funneling money to terrorists.

[Bluebear]

40. The White House had to do a press release to deny the "charge" that she is a lesbian

When on earth have they ever done anything like that before? And calling the "charge" a "smear campaighn" and a "lie", the language of criminality... Well, you can see what the White House thinks of the possibility. :scared:

[Prism]

47. Language is always a give away

And on this issue, on the Democratic side of this, we're seeing language loaded up like people were stuffing the world's biggest baked potato.

[Jennicut]

63. Or maybe she just doesn't feel like "coming out" to the world.

Frankly, I find the speculation amusingly childish. My sexuality only defines me as a person a tiny bit. There is way more to me then that I am married and have two kids. I would love for some politician to just say they are asexual. Way too much emphasis on it in my opinion.

[Bluebear]

66. No, this has nothing to do with "coming out". Calling it a "smear campaign" and a lie

is the language indicating that if she were a lesbian, that would be less than desirable.

[Jennicut]

67. Has she come out as gay? Then it is pure speculation.

And therefore, smearing someone with a possible non truth and a possible lie. Clearly, if she IS gay, she doesn't want to talk about it. The WH is respecting that.

[Bluebear]

68. Uh, how is surmising she is gay a "smear"? Do you get the language you are using?

[Jennicut]

70. No "being gay" is not a smear. Insinuating that someone

is something that they have not claimed to be is kind of wrong, isn't it? I think the Rethugs are being ridiculous. I didn't see it as the WH saying being gay was a possible bad thing.

[struggle4progress]

81. Suddenly there's a right to public inquiry into the sexuality of successful unmarried women? O no!

I'm not sympathetic to the rightwing's political motives, and I find their approach asinine. I am rather more sympathetic to your apparent political motives, but I find your approach equally asinine. It is not merely that you want to drum up exactly the idiotic noise that the rightwing wants to drum up, though I always do a double-take when I find people on this board doing that: it is that a generation of feminists worked long and hard to allow women to enter traditionally male professions and to be evaluated without reference to their sexuality and without the nasty sexual leering that has been all-too-customary -- and you, piously claiming saintly political motives, propose to run a bulldozer through the middle of their work. I can see no reason to think that your political motives deserve any consideration whatsoever when weighed against the woman's right to define herself however she wants

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

50. If you were a EEO compliant HR person you would never ask ANY applicant ANY questions about

marital status or

family or

dependents

Pretty simple. None of your beeswax.

You can ask those questions AFTER hiring when you are filling out benefits paperwork, etc. when it is RELEVANT.

[Prism]

52. We're asking about one of the most powerful individuals in America

Sorry, this comparison does not hold up. This isn't some menial clerkship. This is an individual who will be shaping law and the very constitution for a generation or two.

[Bucky]

76. Thank you. It is vital that we know the manner & preferences by which she achieves orgasm

Don't these DINO fools, these closet neocons not even understand what the Founders meant by "pursuit of happiness"? They meant "go after teh gays"!

[Prism]

77. People keep stepping in it

When they think sexual orientation only concerns sex acts.

Seriously. what decade is this?

[bliss_eternal]

53. but isn't it interesting that when people run for public office...?

...they are frequently asked such questions? specifically if the candidate is a woman? the rules are different for women in public office (than the men).

the dudes can just show up w/their wives and kids standing behind them, looking spiffy, smiling supportively. if a woman doesn't do that, the powers that be are bound to ask....and totally feel it *is* their business.

:crazy:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

55. And if you subjected a hire to confirmation by the Senate it would also be improper

The people hiring Bill Clinton asked "Boxers or Briefs"

We are talking about one of the 20 or so most powerful people in the nation, not a civil service hire.

[ProSense]

60. Sexuality, religion, race, political affiliation

Only race currently appears on an application, and a response is optional.

[MilesColtrane]

62. It is just as acceptable for someone to ask the question as it is for her to offer a polite,...

"That is none of your business, Senator".

[FrenchieCat]

69. Asking someone's about their sexual orientation

while on a job interview should be outlawed. period.