|
May 10, 2010
The Andrew Sullivan/American Family Association Identity Politics Alliance Against Privacy!
Not that the world was wondering, but I don't give a damn about Supreme Court pick Elena Kagan's sexuality. And while I don't like her liberal, anti-military philosophy, that would typify anyone of her background, many of whom would be worse. So I haven't felt especially compelled to write about her. Until today, that is. The culture war has reared its ugly head, and activated all sorts of busybodies who care deeply about things like the sexuality of their fellow citizens. I would like to think that we are moving past such concerns, and I think most people have. Most, but not all. There are gay activist busybodies who don't believe in leaving people alone, and they are assisted by anti-gay busybodies on the other "side." It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish. We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. And yet we have been told by many that she is gay ... and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively.Actually, the American Family Association is delighted to do Andrew's bidding. In a blog post for the far-right American Family Association (AFA) today, Bryan Fischer comes right out and says that the media should pointedly ask Kagan, "Are you a lesbian?" And if she is, according to AFA, she shouldn't serve on the court:So there you go. From opposite "sides" in this blasted culture war comes the same, equally bigoted question.It's time we got over the myth that what a public servant does in his private life is of no consequence. We cannot afford to have another sexually abnormal individual in a position of important civic responsibility, especially when that individual could become one of nine votes in an out of control oligarchy that constantly usurps constitutional prerogatives to unethically and illegally legislate for 300 million Americans. ARE YOU NOW, OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN, A HOMOSEXUAL? Such concerns are what drive identity politics. Your sexuality is their business. Ugh. If this is what passes for politics, I wish I could opt out. MORE: Glenn Reynolds takes a close look at Kagan, and finds her to be a surprisingly good pick -- especially considering the alternatives. Well worth reading. As to the argument over whether she is gay, and whether she has the right to any privacy, Glenn linked this discussion in Mother Jones which raised some good questions about the motives behind this inquisition. (Basically, she's an unmarried woman who looks like a stereotypical lesbian -- and it appears that if she didn't invoke the stereotype, no one would be asking.) I realize that Andrew Sullivan is not alone in suggesting that inquiries about the sexuality of public office seekers should now be a legitimate focus, but I don't like it. Such questions easily lend themselves to being petty and tyrannical in nature, and are irrelevant to public service. It's not as if we were in the 1950s when questions like "ARE YOU NOW, OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN, A HOMOSEXUAL?" were asked, and I don't recall Justices Alito or Roberts being quizzed about what might have ever turned them on. Should they have been? If so, where do we draw the line? Should all candidates for all public offices have their sexuality vetted? And how far should such vetting go? Should we be asking about what age virginity was lost? Whether there has been loyalty to partners? Whether pornography was used? About specific sexual tastes? ("Are you or have you ever been bisexual?" Have you any fetishes?" "Have you ever taken part in any sexual activities which might be termed bondage or sadomasochism?" "Have you ever participated in anal sex?" "Please state whether you were on the top or the bottom.") I realize the above is far from inclusive (doubtless the government screeners could come up with something more comprehensive), but is this the way we want to live? Is privacy over? posted by Eric on 05.10.10 at 07:07 PM
Comments
Sullivan has become the person he once despised. Frank · May 10, 2010 10:39 PM "Your sexuality is their business" I'm not so sure. All successful animals regulate their sexuality, punishing animals that break the norm. Our failure to do so is causing the poor, irresponsible to out breed everyone else. TomSwift · May 10, 2010 11:00 PM But, if Kagen were pretending to be straight, while secretly a Lesbian, and going to great lengths to create a cover by dating men for instance, then THAT would be relevant. On the other hand, people who go to great lengths, over years & years to hide who they are while pretending to be the opposite, are not fit for high office. At the least they are duplicitous, at the most cowards and hypocrites. And it usually ends ugly. Frank · May 10, 2010 11:17 PM "Your sexuality is their business" I'm not so sure. All successful animals regulate their sexuality, punishing animals that break the norm. Our failure to do so is causing the poor, irresponsible to out breed everyone else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has been shown not to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphids. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue." I am unaware of an anti-gay movement among penguins. Perhaps you can give me a cite? M. Simon · May 11, 2010 04:22 AM The problem with hiding your sexuality is that you then open yourself up to blackmail. It's not the homosexuality, it's the cover-up. I long for a day when we can hate each other for who we are instead of peripheral stuff like who we worship, screw or what color our skin is. I just look at that stuff as the lazy man's way out. Veeshir · May 11, 2010 09:34 AM My argument is neither in favor of nor against the hiding or concealing of sexuality; only the right to do so. I think that sexual freedom must inherently include the right to privacy about sexual matters. Otherwise, gay activist demands that people "out" themselves are little more than a pathetic echo of their antagonists. But identity politics is rooted in reactions against bigotry. Sometimes it ends up replacing one form of bigotry with another. Eric Scheie · May 11, 2010 12:26 PM She may or may not be gay. But she is certainly fat, ugly and stupid. Robert of Ottawa · May 11, 2010 09:23 PM I'm against any one running for office who is into whips and chains. That is where the real problems lie. M. Simon · May 12, 2010 06:00 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
May 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
May 2010
April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
La Raza
Moconology for those who want to moconomize What is gay? Mind if I ask? madly not caring Doing The Conservative Thing Happy Birthday, Salvador Dalí! You Can Already Count The Cost The Andrew Sullivan/American Family Association Identity Politics Alliance Against Privacy! Your home is your castle, and your computer is in your home. Right? Hey man, cut me some SLACK!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
From "Sleeping With The Enemy" by Andrew Sullivan, in The Atlantic, 1991: (last paragraph)
Whatever the differences among gay men and lesbians, there was always a sense that everyone was essentially on the same side. Now I’m not so sure. It’s not so much that, within the gay world, there are now those who have assumed the rhetoric of the historic enemy. Nor even that, in the heat of battle, some have taken to desecrating others’ religious beliefs and practices, embracing the very forms of intolerance that homosexuals, of all people, have historically shrunk from. It is that they have attacked the central protection of gay people themselves. They have assailed the ability to choose who one is and how one is presented, to control the moment of self-disclosure and its content. They have declared that the bonds of common sympathy must be sacrificed to ideology, that the complexities of love and loyalty and disclosure can be resolved by the uniformity that is the classical objective of terror. The gleam in the eyes of the outers, I have come reluctantly to understand, is not the excess of youth or the passion of the radical. It is the gleam of the authoritarian.