It is apparently an open secret in D.C. circles that possible Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is a lesbian. Although she herself has never come out of the closet, her partner has, and is an out-and-proud member of the D.C. social circle. Well, it's take two to tango, and so the math is pretty easy here.
Which is why self-described "conservative lesbian" (note: there can be no such thing; homosexuality is not a conservative value) Cynthia Lockey is upset with her liberal, lesbian-supporting friends, from the White House on down.
When a mainstream media columnist, Ben Domenench, casually identified Kagan's sexual preference on the CBS website, the gay-loving left went ballistic, eventually forcing CBS to scrub the column altogether.
Well, thank Gaia gays and lesbians can count on the left — the gay-lovin’, gay rights supportin’ left — to have their backs. So how are they taking the news? KA. FREAKING. BOOM! SHAME-A-PALOOZA! The White House announced that Kagan is straight and it is all Bush’s fault if anyone says otherwise. HuffPo has declared war on the “Republican whispering campaign.” Human Rights Campaign is decrying discussion of Kagan’s sexual orientation as being “straight out of the right-wing playbook.”
But wait, there’s more!
This isn’t just leftists shaming all lesbians and gays and denying the legitimacy of nominating a member of our minority when representation of diversity is supposedly a fundamental value of leftism. Gays and lesbians are also joining in!
Oh, and no one has interviewed Kagan to ask her to settle the matter. Sigh.
Well, now back to Roger’s question: “Why is it such a slur to suggest Elena Kagan is a lesbian?”
Simon, who according to Yockey is an avid supporter of the radical homosexual agenda and has a homosexual son, asks an excellent question. If homosexual activists are so proud of their sexual preference, why would they consider it a slur for anyone to be called gay? It actually, in their worldview, should be considered a compliment of the highest order. It might be inaccurate, but it could hardly be considered a "slur." For instance, you might publicly declare that I am a scratch golfer. This, sadly, is utterly untrue, and I would need to correct the public record, but I would hardly consider it a tawdry attack on my personhood.
My main argument against adding a homosexual to the bench is simply this. That individual would have already made up his (generic use) mind on one of the central public policy issues of they day, whether homosexuals deserve special rights or just the equal rights the rest of us have.
Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law, but with a homosexual on the bench, gay activists would be more equal than others. They'd have a vote in the bag before oral arguments were ever presented. This is hardly sporting, and hardly fair if justice indeed is supposed to be blind.
The Supreme Court would become the leading activist organization for the advance of the homosexual agenda. Other jurists might find it difficult to vote their jurisprudential conscience on things like gay marriage, civil unions, ENDA, gays in the military, homosexual adoptions, etc. etc. for the very personal reason that they would not want to offend a colleague on the bench. Justice would be hopelessly compromised. The mere fact that the other justices would have to calculate such personal implications of their rulings is sufficient in and of itself to know it's a bad idea.
Without realizing what she is doing, Yockey makes my case for me. She declares that we must have homosexuals on the Supreme Court if the goals of the radical homosexual agenda are ever to be realized. She admits that she is not looking for an impartial jurist to sit on the bench, that is, a jurist who understands that sexual deviancy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution as a sacred civil right.
There are many severe implications of the homosexual agenda for family policy, educational policy, the military and the nation's health, and the Constitution is clear that these issues are best decided by the representatives of the people and not by judges legislating from the bench.
No, Yockey wants a homosexual on the Court because she knows that this individual will not in fact be a neutral umpire but will be calling the game on behalf of his home team, fellow gay activists.
She wants an activist on the bench, a crusader, and knows that a homosexual judge will tilt the playing field on behalf of the legalization and social endorsement of sexually aberrant behavior:
Frankly, I think lesbian and gay equality activists should be campaigning for one of our own to become a justice of the Supreme Court. I don’t believe our equality will come from the legislative branch — the rewards for stigmatizing gays and forcing everyone into heterosexual lives are so high that religious and secular totalitarians always will do those things. That means our equality is most likely to come from the judicial branch. And while I do see the foundation for our equality in the Constitution — everyone else is looking in the wrong spots, but it’s there, trust me — I think it’s going to take a lesbian or gay peer on the Supreme Court to have the credibility and stature to explain to the other justices how the Constitution and federal law apply to issues of equality for lesbians and gays. I do not believe they will be able to sort out the slurs from the truth otherwise. (Emphasis mine)
So Ms. Yockey has unwittingly made my case for me. We should have no homosexuals on the Supreme Court for the reason she herself puts forth. The day a homosexual is elevated to the bench, the end will have come for the principle of sexual normalcy, the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. That's too big a price to pay.