The debate over whether the President should appoint an open lesbian to the Supreme Court is delightfully incomprehensible. I hope it keeps up.
The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund seems to have gotten the ball rolling when they noted that Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School, was a serious contender, and happened to be lesbian. Politico followed up by noting that another among the Frequently Mentioned, Pam Karlan, was also lesbian.
Seeing the opportunity to start a fight, Mark Helperin baited Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, asking what he'd think about that. Sessions said that he would not necessarily be opposed to a nominee who had "gay tendencies." As someone with gay tendencies, myself - so many that I am actually gay -- I found this pretty hopeful, despite the 1950s tinge of the articulation.
Sessions' response was entertainingly deconstructed by Jonathan Chait at TNR, then contradicted by Senator Jon Thune, who said that an openly gay justice would be "a bridge too far." Sessions then had to hide behind his party's most prejudiced constituents, confusing them with "the American People," who he believes would be "uneasy" with a lesbian. Nevertheless, he said he wants the Senate to treat every nominee fairly, "regardless of what persuasion they may have."
Focus on the Family weighed in, saying that sexual activity "should never come up" for a judicial nominee. "It's not even pertinent." The Family Research Council then entered the fray, saying that while a nominee's "personal sex life" should be irrelevant, anyone who was publicly homosexual "could impose a pro-gay ideology on the court."
The good news in all this is how it shows that the closet is a thing of the past. Despite quaint references to tendencies and persuasions, the right can no longer credibly claim that gay people should just shut up. The only remaining ground is to try and muddle the debate with images of sexual activity, which, of course, heterosexuals also engage in - and have been known to talk about.
As Jamie Kirchick has argued, when we focus on getting one of our own nominated to a prominent position, our efforts will necessarily and predictably be viewed as "cynical tokenism." That is the unfortunate legacy of identity politics.
On the other hand, neither we, nor anyone else can pretend that gay people aren't gay. It is, in fact, the consciousness of homosexuality that drives this discussion. What is unique now is that those who are comfortable talking about gay people have the advantage. This is one important way the right - and the GOP in particular -- is losing its credibility with the public. Sen. Sessions can no longer avoid having to discuss openly homosexual candidates for the Supreme Court. He seems to be dealing with this in good faith, but is still struggling with the vocabulary that every high school student speaks fluently.
Gays do not want - or intend -- to talk about their sexual activity any more than heterosexuals do . . . particularly not at a public hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is only a few lost souls who can't keep a person's sexual orientation separate from that person's private sexual conduct. Over time, they will have to get rid of that tendency.
8 Comments for “Tendencies”
posted by Bobby on
It’s all about minorities now, why bother reading resumes or discussing accomplishments? Let’s just vote.
Should the next SCOTUS judge be:
A. Black
B. Hispanic
C. Asian
D. Pacific-Islander
E. Native American
F. LGBT
Or let’s do it by religion
A. Atheist
B. Satanist
C. Pagan/Wiccan
D. Muslim
But maybe I’m not being fair, maybe I should support Kathleen Sullivan since she’s a lot cuter than that hispanic lady they where also considering.
So, let’s pick our next judge based on body fat.
A.0%-3%
B 3%-6%
C 7%-12%
Isn’t it fun to be shallow? 🙂
posted by Carl Hendrickson on
Memo to David Link: BINGO
posted by Michael on
I am confused by this talk of a gay or lesbian Supreme Court Justice. The Justice that is retiring IS our first gay Justice. That was already well known when they nominated him back in 1992. But Justice Souter was not an “openly activist” in your face kind of gay men.
posted by Jorge on
Will a gay Justice’s homosexuality influence his or her work on the court? Absolutely. Look at Justice Thomas. They put a KKK case before him, and he actually woke up. Ah, but he still voted conservative.
All this hand-wringing on the right is good evidence of the fact that a *straight* justice is inherantly impaired when it comes to being objective in deciding gay issues. This is why the Court should, as much as possible for a panel of nine exceptional people, reflect the diversity of the nation.
posted by Bobby on
“Look at Justice Thomas. They put a KKK case before him, and he actually woke up. Ah, but he still voted conservative.”
—Are you talking about the cross burning case? If you are, then he voted FAIRLY, cross burning IS free speech if you do it on your own property.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The only remaining ground is to try and muddle the debate with images of sexual activity, which, of course, heterosexuals also engage in ? and have been known to talk about.
Actually, in the case of a lesbian nominee to SCOTUS, I’d think that her opponents would more likely try to muddy the debate with images of “man-hating feminazis who also resent married heterosexual women,” and stuff like that. Sure, her imagined sexual practices may come up a little, but much less so (I suspect) than would be the case for a openly gay male nominee.
posted by Carl Hendrickson on
Memo to Michael:
“But Justice Souter was not an “openly activist” in your face kind of gay men.” Should read, “But Justice Souter is not an “openly gay” man.
Souter’s closet door is as hard to find as his cabin in the woods.
posted by Michael on
Carl, you are right. I was getting too emotional in how I worded my comment. Thanks.