Glen Greenwald the reasoned thinker -- most times -- Elena Kagan's Closet

Please see http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/ , an article about closeted people who are seeking powerful public position as relates to Elena Kagan's alleged homosexuality by some.

Glen Greenwald offers sagacious arguments with crystal clear reasoned thought.

Until this very minute I, as a gay rights supporter, always said it's none of anyone's business what a person does in the privacy of his or her bedroom. Those questions are out of order and simply meant for salacious gossip by right wingnut opposition so it can try to destroy a Court nominee. Glen Greenwald thinks otherwise. The key to his thinking is that homosexuality (and heterosexuality) are NOT about sex and that it should be mandatory for a candidate to reveal whether homosexual or heterosexual what their marital/partner status is and who her partner or spouse may be. It gave me pause for thought about the issue.

Glen is absolutely CORRECT we are NOT asking about Elena Kagan's sex life and yes, if one were heterosexual and seeking the same position one quite rightfully would have to allow for public investigative intrusion of not only the applicant's background but also his/her spouse or partner's background as well. Partners and spouses matter hugely when one is seeking an EXTREMELY powerful and socially impacting government position. He reasons that the questions about Elena Kagan's sexuality are NOT salacious peering into the nitty gritty of the type of sex Elena Kagan might have IF she were homosexual. He avers that her sexuality is more much more than meets the prurient eye as it would be if the candidate were heterosexual. No one asked Barak Obama what kind of sex he and Michelle enjoy but rather accept his marital status as just that a status! This is a reasonable argument.

However, the argument against Glen Greenwald's position is this: T'were that we lived in a nation and at a time when OTHERS could not thwart a nomination because of the self revelation of homosexuality. We do not. We live in the time we do. Reality dictates if she self admits her sexual orientation IF she is homosexual she would be sowing the seeds of her defeat. We must play the ball where it lies.

We have, indeed, made progress understanding gender orientation BUT we are not there yet which is why I suspect she will deny it IF in fact it is a fact and why her supporters will deny it too and go to great lengths to say this topic is not appropriate for discussion.

Glen, do you really think IF Elena Kagan is lesbian and she matter-of-factly said so that this would not sink her nomination EVEN in our semi-enlightened age? I suspect it would which is why I defend those who defend her by saying her sexuality is none of anyone's damn business.

The truth is in our age even those of us who advocate for equal rights for homosexuals know that in certain segments of our society the admission of that could sink advancement so we pragmatically do what we must to help our cause even if it means keeping our orientation secret.

One could make the argument that if this is true than one should reject the position. I say no. Do what it takes to get on the court. After that one can do what one wants and impact our culture for the better even more.

Unfortunately, we still live in a culture which many cannot even accept a black president much less an admitted homosexual on the court. Maybe just maybe in 20 years the disclosure will be a non-issue.