I agree with John Tabin that Andrew Sullivan is not a serious person, but I also understand Sullivan’s position that his views on “the closet” have evolved over time.
Here’s the deal, though. Sullivan is allowing his personal idiosyncratic agenda to color his analysis. Sullivan wants Kagan to be gay and he wants her to declare that’s she gay and he wants her to be confirmed anyway. That would represent a major breakthrough for gay equality in this country. A closeted Supreme Court Justice wouldn’t provide the same bang for the buck, and, in some ways, it would perpetuate the stigma around homosexuality. Sullivan tries to tell us that we have the right to know whether Kagan goes down on other women, in the same way that we have a right to know if she’s married and has children. I suppose we have a right to know if she is co-habitating with someone, but do we have a right to know if she goes on dates or what she did by way of experimentation during her college years?
Consider that the White House has already told Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post that Kagan in not a lesbian. That’s not something you want to have to retract, so they presumably believe that she’s straight. Does Sullivan want to hear those words from Kagan’s mouth? Obviously not. He wants to hear the opposite.
Most commentary I’ve seen on gay blogs works from the assumption that Kagan is gay and then asks whether she should come out of the closet at this moment of highest scrutiny or attempt to avoid answering the question. If this were mainly good faith advice to be honest and forthright to avoid getting caught in a lie or coming off as shady or ashamed, then I’d probably by more sympathetic. But whatever Kagan’s sexual orientation may be, it’s clearly not central to her self-identity. Maybe some gay activists want to transform this from a debate about her qualifications and temperament into a national debate about being gay in modern America, but nothing about Kagan’s laser-focused career suggests to me that she’d agree.
At Hunter College High School in the 1970s, Ms. Kagan was a standout in a school of ultrabright girls. At least one classmate there, Natalie Bowden, remembers she had an ambitious goal: to become a Supreme Court justice.
“That was a goal from the very beginning,” Ms. Bowden said. “She did talk about it then.”
…Although there was nothing judicial about the student government, in her senior yearbook Ms. Kagan, in wire-rimmed aviator glasses and long hair, is pictured on the group’s page wearing a judge’s robe, gavel in hand. Underneath is a quotation from Justice Frankfurter, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt.
“Government,” it reads, “is itself an art, one of the subtlest of arts.”
Does that sound like someone who wants to transform everything she’s done to get to this point into a debate about her sexuality and its meaning for American society? I don’t think so. Frankly, I don’t want to speculate about her sexuality because I think it’s disrespectful. But I would understand it if she spent her life believing that being openly gay would crush her lifelong dream of being a Supreme Court justice. I’d also understand it if she didn’t want a family interfering with her searing ambition.
Whatever the case, she was not picked to be a breakthrough nominee. The White House says she’s not gay. If she wants to say that for herself, that’s fine by me, but she shouldn’t be forced to out herself to satisfy someone else’s agenda.
In 1991, Sullivan wrote the following in the The New Republic, which he now disavows:
In all the recent brouhaha over the “outing” of alleged homosexuals, one fallacy has remained virtually unchallenged. It’s the notion of a simple “closet” and the crude assertion that one is either in it or out of it. I know of no one to whom this applies. Most homosexuals and lesbians whose sexualities are developed beyond adolescence are neither “in” nor “out.” They hover tentatively somewhere in between. And most outings are not essentially about dragging someone out of anything. They are crude assertions about invariably complex people, which have very little to do with the nature of someone’s sexuality, and all to do with who controls the disclosure of it.
It should be noted that there are many people who hover tentatively somewhere between gay and straight, not just “in” or “out,” and that not everyone adopts a team as part of their self-identification. Some people are actually disinterested enough in having sexual relations with other people that they don’t bother to have them. Sullivan wants Kagan to explain her spinsterhood. Does the choice not to get married now require a obligatory gay-denial? Does Sullivan really want to establish the principle that there are only two teams, ‘gay’ and ‘straight,’ and all nominees must publicly choose a side? Does he now believe that no one can serve in government while remaining in the closet?
Sullivan’s views may have evolved, but he was right about this:
They are crude assertions about invariably complex people, which have very little to do with the nature of someone’s sexuality, and all to do with who controls the disclosure of it.
Sullivan should stick to writing about the provenance of the Palin children.
His commentary is never worth reading. I only go over there because he’s got a lot of interesting links and news articles.
so why are you elevating Sully’s silliness to a front pager?
I gotta say, I’m opposed to kagan at this point for a variety of reasons: gossip that she may or may not share my taste for women is immaterial, and in any event being gay says nothing about how she would rule as a justice. Plenty of gay people are as evil and conservative as hell: just ask the corpse of J. Edgar Hoover.
I’m really not comfortable with “she’s Obama’s friend, and you can trust Obama’s judgement” thing. after all, this is the president who endorsed more offshore oil drilling and thinks Arlen Specter is the best choice for PA democrats.
I am not comfortable with this choice, but I’d like to see her nomination debated over issues of genuine concern.
i don’t want to tell you what to write about or how to go about it, but (to this reader at least) it would have been more educational to see the article presented as “andrew sullivan is making a big deal out of Kagan’s sexuality, when the real problem is…”
just my .02, and again, I’m not telling you what or how to write. it’s a good takedown either way.
“…and in any event being gay says nothing about how she would rule as a justice.”
Really? I think that’s pure BS. I don’t think that’s any more true for gays than it is for African Americans, women, or Latinos or any historically discriminated class of people. I think it’s very difficult for a person of a discriminated class not to factor in their life’s experience or the historical treatment of their peoples in their decisions. And when they do seemingly ignore or dismiss that unique experience or history (Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas) it’s perceived as betrayal, rightly or wrongly. I think it’s a reasonable expectation that your experiences as a minority, a discriminated minority, should factor into your decisions, certainly not the prevailing factor, but a factor. And if those considerations are being made in secret…if there is evidence that those considerations are being made in secret, we have a right to know.
“I think it’s very difficult for a person of a discriminated class not to factor in their life’s experience or the historical treatment of their peoples in their decisions. “
i don’t think it’s pure BS. being gay hasn’t stopped people like Larry Craig from being a total fucking asshole to gay people. Sure didn’t stop David Drier from being a dick to gay people. Hasn’t stopped Patrick mcHenry from being a conservative piece of shit.
Their experiences as Gay persons, albeit closeted, has influenced their decision making. There are many many challenges to being openly AND secretly Gay in this society, but it still is an experience that influences your decision making–for better or worse.
Every experience influences your decision making. Sorry, but being gay just ain’t that special. That’s what the likes of Sullivan can’t stand to hear.
What is this don’t ask don’t tell in reverse?
The rallying cry from the Gay rights community has been that homosexuality should be a protected class because it’s no different than race or gender. The overwhelming response from African Americans has been “hell no it’s not!” And not just because most African Americans don’t subscribe to the belief that homosexuality is genetic, but primarily because Gays and Lesbians have the ability to hide or conceal their sexual orientation. I’ve rejected that premise because I’ve believed that if most Gays and Lesbians were allowed to live openly without fear of losing their civil rights, they would. I’ve accepted the argument that they shouldn’t be forced out of the closet as long as they weren’t a protected class. What I’m hearing from you and others is that even if they are legally afforded all of the civil rights protections of racial minorities and women you still think Gays and Lesbians should have the right not to go public when seeking public office?
Yes, that is absolutely what I believe. The excuse for denying gays government jobs was always that they were subject to blackmail. As we’ve seen so regularly now, straights are just as subject to blackmail for screwing around with whatever. Do you think a white person who is only sexually attracted to black people or vice versa should be forced to defend that in public? Nobody has any obligation to define their sexuality for anybody else unless they themselves have put it on the table.
As an African American, I have to wonder how I would feel if I suspected a “closeted” African American woman nominee was passing for white? I know it’s not completely analagous, but what Sullivan is addressing used to be a huge issue within the African American community. The color cast system that was created under slavery extended well into the 1960’s and many African Americans who could pass for white did to advance their careers and their standard of living. My maternal great grandmother’s parents’ passed themselves and their children for white. She married a very dark-skinned man and was no longer able–or wanted to–continue that pattern. As a proud African American, I’m partly abhorred and embarrassed that this is a part of my family’s history, but at the same time I wonder if I could have been as principled if I lived during that time and was a afforded an opportunity to have a much easier life than my darker skinned kin folks? Would it have been wrong? And who had the right to judge? I don’t know. But the struggle between individual aspirations and responsibilities to the community is part of the American experience and deserves to be discussed. I strongly believe that homosexuality is as genetic as race or gender. As an African American, I know how pissed I would be if I thought Kagan was black and passing, so I can’t be so dismissive of Sullivan as crude as he may be at times.
It’s an interesting thought experiment but it supposes that a person must be ‘gay’ of they aren’t married or aren’t in a relationship with someone from the opposite sex. Maybe Elena Kagan is a virgin. Maybe she’s hops in bed with anything warm. It’s not our business.
You want a thought experiment?
Change the questions.
Has [the nominee] ever kissed a girl? How about heavy petting? Did she do the same with boys? Did she like it? How long ago was her last same-sex encounter? Did she enjoy it? Does she plan on having any heterosexual encounters after she is confirmed? If not, why not? Despite having had a lesbian encounter in teenager, she doesn’t identify as gay. Is that reasonable? Is she a self-hater?
The point is, that people aren’t necessarily gay or straight, and we can’t get into the game of trying to force people to declare that they are one or the other. It’s stupid.
I didn’t suggest the woman face an inquisition on her sexuality, but if there is any real evidence, e.g. a girlfriend known to friends or family, I think we have a right to know. I underscore real evidence. There is no way in hell that her sexuality, if she is Gay, does not influence her decision making any more than my being Black doesn’t influence mine.
It’s always been a puzzle and an aggravation to me that the groups most obsessed with establishing a hard line between gay and straight with no fuzzy middle ground are the theocrat bigots and a lot of gay activists. Maybe everybody could just mind their own business.
This is the key point. And it not only applies to Kagan but also to Janet Reno and to Lindsey Graham — unless there is credible evidence to the contrary.
Those in government deserve their privacy no more than ordinary citizens do — and no less.
And citizens should expect that the decisions of judges would honor their privacy to the extent that the judges want their privacy honored. Kagan’s answer on “don’t ask, don’t tell” will be a critical determinant of how she should be treated. If she thinks the military has the obligation to ask about sexual orientation, well citizens then also have the obligation to ask her about her sexual orientation. Because at that point it becomes an issue of whether she will be biased on issues involving gays because of a concern for her own protective coloration.
So she’s middle-aged, single, never married, no children?
So am I. Big deal. There are a lot of us. Some of us never meet the right guy, and knew how to use birth control when we were actively looking. Some of us, yes, actually are lesbians. And some of us just got busy doing other things… careers, education, other family responsibilities, activism, whatever. Was it worth it? Most of us would say yes.
And some women manage to find a balance with the family/marriage thing and a successful career. Look at Nancy Pelosi. Or Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton. It’s harder, the challenges are different, but those are the choices one makes along the way. Was it worth it? Most women on that path would probably say yes, too.
I don’t give a tinker’s damn about Ms. Kagan’s private life. I am interested in her professional credentials and qualifications for the job she’s being nominated for. Those look to be excellent. I’d like to get a sense of her personality and how she thinks, but that will come out during the hearing process, I’m sure.
But I know a little something about being a single woman over 50 without children. It’s not unusual, and it has very little to do with sexuality — and much more to do with Life and the choices one makes along the way.
That’s because you don’t approach politics primarily as a form of self-expression, or in tribal aggression, like a proper American.
Hear hear. There’s a lot of discrimination going on about homosexuality with Kagan to be sure, but by far the most scathing discrimination is assuming she is a lesbian because she is a middle-aged woman, single and doesn’t have any kids.
I know sexism when I see it, and this is just more of it.
“She can’t possibly be a straight woman. What straight woman has a life like that? Everyone knows that by 50 that straight women have been married or have children. Normal women, that is.”
Could their sexism be any more blatant? It’s the same stigma attached to Pelosi, although she does have a family. People still don’t look to her as a champion for women’s equality, though, specifically because of that. Everyone knows you have to be a cold-hearted calculating bitch without any desire to procreate or have a family to be a successful career-woman.
Disgusting.
This non-question seems to be all over the Net, promoted by a cadre of gay “activists”. It’s a shame that such idiotic babble should impinge on a serious decision. There is no issue, not controversy here because the answer is clear and simple: it’s none of Sullivan’s, or any gay activist, or any wingnut, or anybody on the face of the planet’s fucking business how Kagan swings or what she wants to say about it. Period. Sullivan and his kind are to gay rights what Glenn Beck is to good government. With nattering brainless queens like these as the media’s version of gay people, good luck with DADT — would you want to be stuck with this bunch with no way out?
Indeed, as near as I can figure the whole “homosexual” question on her is driven because she is not attractive and not married. Ergo Lesbian.
Christ, or maybe even Crist!
Let’s get the discussion beyond the convenient categories. Since many married people with children are also gay, the question should either be asked of everyone (e.g. people like Roberts) or of no-one.
Also, let’s acknowledge the partial reasonableness and universality of the discomfort. People who haven’t demonstrated the ability to form long-term, intimate relationships arouse suspicion. It’s actually a criterion for some DSM disorders (sociopathy perhaps). People saw Souter’s hermeticism and ludditism (?) as disconcerting too. But not enough to bar him from the court. She just has to show that she’s emotionally mature and well-grounded, which she will.
The other part of this is that people are afraid that if she’s gay, she’ll use her position to advance a personal agenda. This is as reasonable as when we’re afraid that a Catholic or evangelical Justice will do the same. The problem is that we see biases that are different than ours as personal agendas but biases that we share as background noise. The question to answer about any nominee is whether they’ll use their position to advance whatever personal agendas they have. That’s a legitimate question and different from “Are you gay?”.
I don’t understand why Sullivan would disavow what he wrote before. Of course, by definition, he wouldn’t know anyone whose life was purely “in” a closet. He would only know people who were partially or completely “out”. But other than that, am I missing something?
Kagan was in a position to reach a huge and influential audience with her ideas about the constitutionality of many issues. She sacrificed that opportunity for her long-term ambition. She may also have sacrificed her entire sexual life for it, either as a gay or a straight woman. Some people thrive when they finally reach a goal after so much sacrifice, some people are crushed by how unfulfilling it turns out to be. That’s a question we could be wondering about her.
Chosing singleminded dedication to her career and goals, and not choosing to raise a family are choices -doing the one does not mean one is sacrificing the other. (I’m sitting in the office blogging and sacrificing drinking in the restaurant across the street)
The operative phrase for me is “false dichotomy”. Gay activists who buy into the dominant cultural idea that everyone is either gay or straight are helping in their own oppression and the oppression of others.
Kinsey showed us by privately and confidentially asking people that sexual identity is a very complex issue. Many are uncomfortable with the ambiguity of a continuum and so insist that everyone adopt a dichotomous (either/or) identity. I reject it fully.
Boo and commenters,
It’s refreshing to find so much common sense and common decency so well articulated here — neither of which are common at all in the blogosphere. Another reason why I really like this place.