It didn’t take long for the far right to launch a coordinated attack on President Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan — and one of the right’s primary weapons is the suggestion that Kagan is a lesbian.
Currently the U.S. solicitor general, Kagan is a highly respected legal scholar, served as the first female dean of Harvard Law School and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Conservative critics note that she has not served as a judge, but neither did many past Supreme Court justices. In any case, some far-right groups have decided that the most relevant question for her nomination debate revolves around rumors that she’s gay. And those far-right groups assume that Kagan, if she is a lesbian, would either be morally unqualified for the post or have a conflict of interest when the court considers (as it almost certainly will) cases involving civil rights for gays and lesbians. (Oddly, none of them says Justice Clarence Thomas, who is African-American, has a conflict of interest in cases involving civil rights for racial and ethnic minorities. Nor do they suggest that female justices can’t be expected to render fair decisions based on the law and the Constitution in cases involving women’s rights.)
Here’s what Liberty Institute, the Texas affiliate of the far-right group Focus on the Family, had to say in an e-mail blast this morning:
“Kagan is a liberal and the former dean of Harvard Law School. She has been criticized because, as dean, she banned Army recruiters on the university’s campus based on her position on homosexual and lesbian rights and her disagreement with the military’s position. She recently came into the spotlight after national media reported that she is a lesbian, and would be the first on the Supreme Court if appointed.”
Other far-right groups have been more directly hostile. “Obama nominates Lesbian Homosexual Elena Kagan to Supreme Court,” screams an e-mail from The Pray in Jesus Name Project. From Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality:
“If Kagan is practicing immoral sexual behavior, it reflects on her character as a judicial nominee and her personal bias as potentially one of the most important public officials in America. The popular mantra — even among conservatives — is that Kagan’s sexuality is ‘irrelevant.’ But a Justice Kagan would help decide some critically important constitutional issues dealing with: homosexual ‘marriage’ as a supposed civil right; religious liberty and freedom of conscience; and the First Amendment as applied to citizens’ right to oppose homosexuality. So it certainly matters if she, as a lifetime judge, could emerge as a crusading (openly) ‘gay’ advocate on the court.”
Expect the right’s rhetoric to get even uglier in coming months.
12 thoughts on “The Right’s Anti-Gay Campaign Against Nominee”
It’s a shame that the “right” (actually WRONG) aren’t embarrassed that their parents never married.
It is 2010, beyond time for sexual orientation to be a non-starter. My niece is a bright organized single woman. She has zero interest in getting married. She drools over some men, but doesn’t want the marriage bit. So her coworkers have decided that she MUST be a lesbian because no woman can be a “real” woman unless she has a man in her life.
B-A-L-O-N-Y. I divorced my ex because he wouldn’t work but one week decided to spend my expense check. I hated to toss hi out after nearly 20 years of marriage, but I guarantee I am not a lesbian. I have friends who are lesbians, but so blinkity blank difference does that make? Gay people don’t go around discussing sex all the time. And remember, 100% of all gay people were born of “straight” people. Sigh…
The speed of my car nudged a couple of miles above the posted 25 mph speed limit in my neighborhood this week. Yep!!! I was doing 27 in a 25 mph zone. I wonder what public office that failure would disqualify me from getting? I would greatly appreciate it if y’all far right conservative fruitcakes out there would please write me back and let me know which office that might be.
Divorce is a sin. Jesus singled it out for “extra special” highlighting and treatment in the New Testament. This is one of the sins that really, really, really, really gets under his skin. He was very forceful about it, so much so that it probably rates right up there with “an abomination before the Lord.” Maybe some of y’all far right fruitcake employers out there need to go down to your far right places of business tomorrow and fire all of those divorced people from their jobs—and be careful not to hire any more of them. Divorce does not just make a mockery of the holy bond of marriage. It is THE PRIME MOCKERY of the holy bond of marriage in American society today. If you are going to start a war over Ms. Kagan, who I never heard of until yesterday and you had not either, you better be ready to drop the first bombs on your own *&^%$ houses—and you know that as well as I do.
I knew this would happen– I guess we all did.
But it IS irrelevant whether or not Elena Kagan is a lesbian. If a lesbian justice can’t make a fair decision in a case involving civil rights of gays and lesbians, shouldn’t we be worried that the heterosexuals on the court won’t be fair in cases involving heterosexuality, or that the married justices can’t be fair when it comes to matters of marriage and family law? It’s the exact same conflict of interest.
What’s wrong with a lesbian being on the court? I mean, they’ve already covered a##hole with Alito….
+100 @ Dr. Kurtin
Focus on the Family is just trying to show that it’s extra-super-duper-anti-gay now that their founder James Dobson’s buddy George Rekers was caught with a “rentboy.”
Everybody’s background is reflected in their own behavior. So what? What is important is the ability to study an issue from all sides and as objectively as possible. The Supreme court needs people with diverse backgrounds, women and men, gays and straight, a buddhist, a christians, a jew, a muslim, a zoroastrian, and yes, an atheist, too. Sexual orientation shouldn’t matter. So much for 9 judges. Since the court makeup cannot include ALL backgrounds, we must select the best from the candidates we know. It should always include basically 1/2 women and 1/2 men. Diversity will hone the decision-making process. When someone is eminently qualified and acceptable to the congress, accept them. There will always be many more qualified candidates that never serve, but what we must do is prevent grossly unqualified candidates from serving. The court must be as representative of the population as is possible, but that doesn’t mean that a candidate be included or excluded on prejudicial grounds.
What is the religious right gonna do when there’s no one left to hate?
Charles, you are so danged right. Christ specifically mentions divorce, and he is not ambiguous.
These folks are super-hypocrites. Somehow the genes mutated and created super-hypocrites.
So they want to alienate a greater share of the electorate by trying to trash Kagan by cowardly character assassination.
They’ve also embraced the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in perpetuating the practice of slavery in the original Constitution.
Oh, yeah, and “male-only voting rights.”
Apparently she KNOWS THE LAW very well.
There hasn’t been a peep about that.
What I’ve seen of her, regardless of her sexuality, is a very likable person with an easy laugh, humble, but confident.
But you can tell that when she runs up against a bully or a liar, she’s the kind of person to be ferocious.
Eminently qualified, I’d say.
Look – over there – it’s a priest raping children!
No – not over there – look over that way! There are two consenting adults of the same sex adopting a foster child! It’s
the end of society as we know it!
While I’m disappointed Pres. Obama didn’t choose a more liberal nominee such Diane Wood now while he’s got a Dem majority in Congress – probably the last Dem majority he’ll ever have – I see no logical reason to trash Elena Kagan to the extent that the Religious Wrong has done.
They are basing all of their nuttiness on mere hearsay. Is that not a sin? In Judaism it is. Gossip = “evil speech” and is not to be repeated nor listened to. Of course, these folks hate Judaism so Jewish Law is of no relevance to them. Fact remains nobody but nobody has supplied any proof that Ms. Kagan is lesbian.
And so what if she is? The Religious Wrong CLAIM to be only driven by the Constitution. So where in the Constitution does it say a homosexual may not sit on the Court (or even be president)? I’m sure our professor Garman will be happy to supply an answer to my question since he knows all about the Constitution.
We note the Religious Wrong has no problem with an African-American on the Court. They did not claim he would be biased in cases involving civil rights. So why single out an ALLEGED lesbian? Emphasis on ALLEGED since supporting evidence remains to be proved.
It just screams how sexually obsessed these fruitcakes are. Maybe they’re frustrated because they never “get any.” And like there’s nothing else to be considered in a Court nominee,… uh,… like qualifications.
Since I’ve been proclaimed a “Marxist,” this Marxist now rests her case.
Aren’t the heterosexual jurists biased towards marriage being between one man and one woman then? Clearly not outlined in the Constitution either.
Those damn founding fathers… they forgot to cover so much.
These are probably the same nutcases screaming for proof of Obama’s birth certificate.
Why aren’t they likewise screaming for proof of Kagan’s alleged homosexuality?
To quote the great Mr. Spock: “Fascinating.”