Prop 8 Trial Tracker

210882 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.prop8trialtracker.com%2F2010%2F05%2F10%2Felena-kagan-and-the-lesbian-rumors%2FElena+Kagan+and+the+%22lesbian+rumors%222010-05-10+18%3A06%3A16Brian+Leubitzhttp%3A%2F%2Fprop8trialtracker.com%2F%3Fp%3D2108 Leave a Comment

• 1. Balu  |  May 10, 2010 at 4:12 am

  I am disappointed in the white house. The White House should have said "Her Sexual Orientation is not and should not be a factor in her Confirmation."

• 2. Straight Ally #3008  |  May 10, 2010 at 4:14 am

  I second Balu's comment. Besides, if Obama really wanted to send the Religious Right into conniption fits, he would have nominated Pam Karlan.

• 3. Ronnie  |  May 10, 2010 at 4:18 am

  I don't care what her S.O. is…..She Lives by the Constitution…and that is her job…<3…Ronnie

• 4. David Kimble  |  May 10, 2010 at 4:18 am

  Should we just accept that as fact?

  Yes, we should! To question one's sexual orientation is to belittle our community even more.

  And should it matter at all?

  No, it shouldn't matter – we need qualified justices to serve and to hear arguments in a non-biased way.

  <3 David

• 5. Kathleen  |  May 10, 2010 at 4:19 am

  And should it matter at all?

  No it shouldn't, but you know it will

• 6. Mark  |  May 10, 2010 at 4:22 am

  Yes, it will…look at the Prop 8 Trial and the talk of Judge Walker's sexual orientation…it is ALWAYS an issue with the anti-gay groups.

• 7. rick  |  May 10, 2010 at 4:30 am

  I think if she is, then the public ought to know. Let the homophobic senatros show their real colors to the people of the US. I think she would get confirmed gay or not, and force those that make this a huge issue put there own necks on the line.

• 8. Brit  |  May 10, 2010 at 4:34 am

  Agreed.

• 9. Richard A. Walter (s  |  May 10, 2010 at 4:39 am

  Yes, we should accept what the White House says as fact wrt Elena Kagan's orientation. After all, maybe she was in a situation similar to that of Attorney General Reno, who never married due to taking care of elderly parents. At the same time, why should her sexual orientation matter? I am more concernec with her understanding and interpretation of the law than I am whether she is straight or gay. I am more concerned with her performance as a justice on the Supreme Court than who she is in love with and married to. And that is what should matter. Her qualifications, not her orientation.

• 10. chamisaguy  |  May 10, 2010 at 4:52 am

  I'm more concerned with her qualifications for Supreme Court Justice, given what I understand to be her limited judicial experience at all, academic qualifications galore, prestigious positions, and also Solicitor General (that's a lawyer, not a judge, right?). I don't care about her sexual orientation, nor should I nor the Congress.

  However, speaking of her judicial opinions, here is something I find disturbing to a great degree concerning DOMA, anti-Prop 8 arguments we've been following in court, and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, etc.: Go to Joe,My,God for the thread about the confirmation hearing for Elena Kagan:

  "JMG reader Matt points us to this dissection of Elena Kagan's Solicitor General confirmation hearing.
  In response to a question from Sen. John Cornyn (at page 28 of her Senate Judiciary Questionnaire), Kagan stated flat out that there was no constitutional right for same sex couples to marry (emphasis mine):
  1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

  a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?
  Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

  b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.
  Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.
  This doesn't mean that Kagan opposes gay marriage. But she clearly believes it is a matter for the political process, not a constitutional right.
  The above-linked blogger concludes that having Kagan on the Supreme Court spells doom for the Olson and Boies marriage equality case."

• 11. David Kimble  |  May 10, 2010 at 4:55 am

  I am wondering why it even matters, but you are correct, it does matter to the "haters of anything that isn't "straight". I am also wondering why it should matter. People are people, regardless of sexual orientation, yet when people talk about members of our community, they often say, "My gay or lesbian friend". I really dislike this demeaning of our community and labeling us with "child molestors", as many of the straight world seems to infer, when speaking about our community.
  <3 David

• 12. GAYGUY  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:03 am

  I also think its great getting a second woman on the court! It only took 225 years to figure out that we ARE all equal genderally speaking!! Like already stated…I just want her to do a GREAT job and be fair with the law and NOT side with religion or political party!

• 13. Richard A. Walter (s  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:06 am

  @gayguy. Actually, until Ruth Bader Ginsburg steps down, Elena Kagan will give us THREE (3) women on the Supreme Court.

• 14. GAYGUY  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:09 am

  I stand corrected…THREE women on the court!!

• 15. Richard A. Walter (s  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:15 am

  Yes, and isn't it great? I think the three of them will have a wonderful impact on us all.

• 16. GAYGUY  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:15 am

  LOL…I guess I already counted her as gone!!

• 17. Kathleen  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:22 am

  UPDATE: Tam's and Proponents' replies to Plaintiffs' objections to their earlier motions to strike evidence and testimony from the record.

  Doc 666 – Tam http://www.scribd.com/doc/31161277/Doc-666

  (See Doc 642 for Tam's original motion; Docs 659, 600, 661 for Plaintiffs' and P-I's objections)

• 18. Kathleen  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:22 am

  Doc 667 – Proponents http://www.scribd.com/doc/31161372/Doc-667

  (See Doc 640 for Proponents' original motion; Docs 659, 600, 661 for Plaintiffs' and P-Is objections)

• 19. GAYGUY  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:25 am

  Kathleen….I don't understand LEGALEEZE…what is the gist?

• 20. Kathleen  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:39 am

  @GAYGUY,

  Previously, both Tam and the other Yes-on-8 proponents had asked the court to strike some of the evidence (and the testimony that refers to that evidence) from the official record. (Docs 640, 642)

  Then, the Plaintiffs responded, with their objections to the request, saying the evidence should stay in the record. (Docs 659, 660, 661)

  These documents, just filed with the court, are Tam's and Proponents' replies to those objections.

  The backstory on all of this is rather complex, having to do with the discovery disputes that have played out on both sides. For a good discussion of this, see this blog entry and follow back the links to get the full history. http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/05/…

  If you still have questions after reading that, ask away!

• 21. Kathleen  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:40 am

  Typo alert! The documents in the above parenthetical references should be 659, 660, 661 (not 659, 600, 661)

• 22. Rick  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:42 am

  A few thoughts on this. The White House should not be stating a nominee's sexual orientation–one way or the other. The nominee, however, should be forthcoming on all the important aspects of her life, especially including sexual orientation. Privacy is a great concept for those who live private lives, but becoming a Supreme Court justice is a very public move. If she's not a lesbian, than she can tell us that. If she is, then get the heck out of the closet already. Nothing has hindered the advancement of gay rights more than closeted gays.

• 23. JerseyJ9  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:46 am

  What i am wondering, if she IS gay then how does that change/effect the course of the prop 8 decisions. After it leave NY it will go to the Federal Appeals Court than the Supreme Court. If part of our argument in this case is that we have extremely little power in this country and should have protective status, how does a gay (or possibly gay) Supreme Court justice change that?? If at all?

• 24. John  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:51 am

  This does not bode well. At all.

• 25. Kathleen  |  May 10, 2010 at 5:59 am

  As to Kagan not having been a judge before, that doesn't particularly concern me. Her academic background more than qualifies her. It does means there isn't a judicial record to evaluate, but it doesn't mean she's not qualified. It might surprise a lot of people to find out that there are quite a number of previous Supreme Court justices who had no judicial experience, including William Rehnquist, the chief justice prior to Roberts.

  As to Kagan's response to the questionnaire posted by the blogger, also read here: http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/kagan-there-is-n…

• 26. Deborah  |  May 10, 2010 at 6:01 am

  http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/05/sup…

  Legal Insurrection blog, as noted by a comment above, is worried about her position on the constitutional right to marriage equality.

• 27. Richard A. Walter (s  |  May 10, 2010 at 6:15 am

  Yes, and I am afraid it won't be long. I think she is waiting because fo Stevens' retirement. Makes it easier when you only have one seat to fill at a time.

• 28. Frozt  |  May 10, 2010 at 6:33 am

  I agree with Rick–even if her sexuality is not a major issue, treating it as something taboo and inappropriate to ask about just helps to confirm that there is something wrong with being gay. If a potential justice were asked if she were married or had kids, she would just answer and move on. Why the veil of secrecy now?

• 29. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  May 10, 2010 at 7:08 am

  So why is it that people are even asking IF she is a lesbian? Simply on 'a look', or the fact that she isn't married? Not sure I get it………

• 30. Richard A. Walter (s  |  May 10, 2010 at 7:18 am

  Because people like MagPieGallagher and Brainless Brown are trying to continue their oppresssion of the LGBTQQIA community by keep anyone who may be any part of it off the highest court bench in the nation. They are so afraid that we will be granted full citizenship status that they will make this an issue even though it should not be one. Hatred and bigotry take many forms, and we are the last community other than illegal immigrants where it is PC to act on this hatred and bigotry.

• 31. dtwirling  |  May 10, 2010 at 7:48 am

  Interesting article on modern changes to the concept and practice of marriage.

  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-resil…

• 32. om  |  May 10, 2010 at 7:52 am

  I think this is being blown way out of proportion. She stated a fact: the Constitution says NOTHING about marriage equality. It didn't say anything about sodomy, either.

  It does, however, guarantee equal protection and liberty, and for now, privacy as well.

  Under the umbrella of liberty, privacy, and equal protection come a lot of good things, and one of them may very well be the overturning of Section 3 of DOMA, and a smackdown of California's separate classes of married/can remarry, married/can't remarry, not married/can't marry, etc.

• 33. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:15 am

  Richard that doesn't answer my question…I know why SOME would care but why did the White House feel the need to mention her orientation? Had someone asked them?

• 34. David Kimble  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:17 am

  @Frozt – I am quite certain, if she was married, we would not be having this discussion, since no questions would be asked about her marital status – it's illegal in some states to ask whether a person is married in a job interview and I believe this should apply to her, as well. It is a non-issue. <3 David

• 35. fiona64  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:31 am

  It is a completely irrelevant matter, I wholeheartedly concur. However, some right-wing whack-jobs will make it an issue (you know how it goes, any excuse to be hateful …)

  Love,
  Fiona

• 36. fiona64  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:32 am

  Hmm. Justice Roberts had no experience on the bench either …

  Love,
  Fiona

• 37. Kathleen  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:38 am

  Roberts was a judge with with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit prior to being appointed to the US Supreme Court.

• 38. fiona64  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:42 am

  Thanks. My mistake.

  I guess I was thinking of someone else (obviously …).

  Love,
  Fiona

• 39. Kathleen  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:46 am

  Mark,

  There's this White House reaction to a CBS news online story, as reported here by the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…

• 40. cc  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:58 am

  I believe that the question about her sexual orientation was asked to The White house in response to the Ben Domenech post. So I think that is why they felt they needed to mention her orientation. I wouldn't see another reason to bring it up, but then again who knows.

• 41. JPM  |  May 10, 2010 at 9:04 am

  Real Courage
  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/10/865272/-T….

  Sgt. Cooper-Harris writes to President Obama about DADT, and sexual blackmail

• 42. Marlene  |  May 10, 2010 at 9:24 am

  What hasn't been stated is her opposition to Don't Ask/Don't Tell! She was one of the leading voices in keeping military recruiters off Harvard's campus.

  Already, John Cornyn (I believe)has stated he's going to vote against her strictly over her opposition to DA/DT.

• 43. Kathleen  |  May 10, 2010 at 9:33 am

  Amusing to me that liberal bloggers are sure she'll rule against marriage equality, while at the same time, NOM is sure she'll impose it: http://nomblog.com/879/

• 44. fiona64  |  May 10, 2010 at 9:39 am

  What a paranoid little blockhead Brian Brown is …

  Love,
  Fiona

• 45. Ronnie  |  May 10, 2010 at 9:44 am

  Brainless Brown..wait…Brian Brood…no no….Bratty Brown….wait I got it…..

  BO BO!…..bwaaaaaaaa….<3…Ronnie

• 46. Carvel  |  May 10, 2010 at 9:52 am

  Why pick a fight when it is not necessary. If they want to know her sexual orientation, then let them ask and let them raise the issue.

• 47. Kathleen  |  May 10, 2010 at 10:45 am

  Off topic, but seemed a good place to post this. AFER is looking for a paid summer intern (location: Los Angeles).
  Requirements:

  > Applicant must be a full-time undergraduate who has completed at least one semester of college by June 2010 and is currently enrolled full-time in a community college or a four-year university OR may be a graduating senior who is completing their undergraduate degree by September 1st, 2010
  > Must be over 18 years of age
  > No criminal record
  > Must have car and valid driver’s license
  > Prioritize and manage multiple projects simultaneously
  > Be detail-oriented, organized, and computer-literate
  > Have excellent written and verbal communications skills
  > Strong research skills
  > Be proficient with Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, Facebook and Twitter
  > Knowledge or interest in LGBT issues, civil rights and/or legal issues

  Additional info available here: http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/american-foundat…

• 48. Kathleen  |  May 10, 2010 at 10:47 am

  Actually, the posting says "interns" so looks like more than one opening

• 49. Straight Grandmother  |  May 10, 2010 at 12:11 pm

  There is no proper topic for me to post this in so I might as well post it here.
  I think I met my first transgender person and surprisingly he is only 5 years old. My husband and I are babysitting for our daughter and her wife’s 2 year old twins while they took a 4 day vacation. The twins cousins came over brother aged 4 and 6. The six year old asked me if he can please have some of my daughter in laws dresses to dress up in, he says that she lets him. He also says he likes to because he likes girls. The boys grandfather brought them over (he is also the other grandfather to our twins). This little boy was literally begging me promising me that his aunt lets him. I was totally blown away and in a nice way didn’t let him as I said I did not know which one of her dresses would be alright.

  Then later outside I see him ballet dancing and then he goes into the toy room and comes out with my granddaughters doll and a pretty purse I had brought her from France. Then he asks me if my granddaughter has any more dolls, he says he likes to play with dolls. I said the dolls were in the play room but he says they are to fat. So I say, “Oh you want a thin doll like a Barbie doll?” He replies yes that is what he wants and tell me he has his own Barbie dolls at home. His grandfather merely commented that the boy likes to dress up and it is creative play. But we all knew what was going on.

  I have to say it gave me the creeps to see a child so young acting out in a different gender. His entire half hour visit was all as described above. Now obviously since I raised 2 children who turned out gay myself I am not judgmental but nonetheless it still gave me the creeps, and I am just writing honestly here. The good thing is he has been born into a very loving and accepting family. His little brother is all boy, a real terror. Can you imagine 5 years old and already saying these things?

• 50. draNgNon  |  May 10, 2010 at 12:30 pm

  Just wanted to respond to post – haven't read comments. I will never agree with the idea that a person's sexuality matters in the workplace unless that workplace is NOM or FRC.

  Anyone who even breathes a disagreement with that is basically saying it's not possible for a fair hearing on lgbt rights. Because no one is lacking sexuality, legal minds included. And his/her professionalism should be judged by their professional actions, not bedroom antics.

• 51. Richard A. Walter (s  |  May 10, 2010 at 12:41 pm

  AMEN!

• 52. Richard A. Walter (s  |  May 10, 2010 at 12:45 pm

  Yes I can. It is more common than people think. What makes the difference between a child like this growing into a Fred Phelps or a well-adjusted adult is the love he or she recieves while growing up. By not belittling him, by being the kind loving soul you are, you have probably done more than you know to help this child grow up to be well-adjusted and strong enough to stand up to the Fred Phelpses of this world.

• 53. nightshayde  |  May 10, 2010 at 1:33 pm

  I fear that a response like that would immediately send up the right wingers’ hackles. A better response might be, “since sexual orientation is not relevant in this context, we didn’t ask. If you would like to ask her about her private life, then ask her.”

• 54. RebeccaRGB  |  May 10, 2010 at 2:00 pm

  This is happening more and more these days. Every time I hear about children figuring this out at early ages it gives me hope, but also makes me a little envious. I only wish I could have figured out I was a girl at that age. It would have made my life so much better and happier.

• 55. Michelle Evans  |  May 10, 2010 at 3:50 pm

  I can absolutely imagine this child saying these things. This is not a new phenomenon, it is just more readily figured out today because things have changed a lot with the recognition and treatment of trans people. You would find that most transgender people, such as myself, knew their body and mind were incongruent at a very early age, much earlier than five. For myself, I can point to memories as early as three, and possibly even earlier.

  It is a common misconception that transgender people are simply those who may be confused or going through some sort of phase, but that is certainly not the norm. We know exactly who we are, and it is wonderful to see the younger generation not having to undergo quite as much stigma as those of us who came before. If I had been able to transition, or just to be accepted as who I really am, prior to the onset of puberty–the damage of which is pretty much irreversible–you would save a lot of heartache and a lot of transgender people's lives.

  So, please don't get the creeps from being around this wonderful five year old. I wish I had the loving family he (actually, she) apparently does. I envy the life this person will lead and how much different and happier she will have it than I ever did. She will never have the anguish of having to hide in shame, while instead she is already apparently accepted for being exactly who she is.

  If things go well, chances are that puberty will either be postponed medically when the time comes, or she will be allowed to proceed directly to the correct hormones at the correct time in her life. Embrace her, never be creeped out or embarrassed by who she is.

• 56. Shun  |  May 10, 2010 at 6:00 pm

  On a semi-related note, when I was in middle school, there was a home making class for electives. There weren't anything else that interesting I wanted to take and then sewing was available. So I figured why not…might as well learn something new.

  But when I brought it up with my mom, she got extremely mad and questioned why i would want to take a class. granted i'm gay (which she does not know yet) but im not feminine and I seriously doubt my interest in it was because I am. I just wanted to try something new and learn a skill. Now, I still wish I could at least sew a button back on a shirt when my buttons fall out…(and now my moms all like 'why can't you do just learn to do something simple like that?'…..) If I ever feel like taking a sewing class, I can and it's not like my mom would freak out now. but, it's experiences like what I had that traumatized me to some degree I feel.

• 57. Carvel  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:10 pm

  I think that shw is right that there is not a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage in the Constitution. The Constitution is silent as to the right to marry and as to same sex issues. The question is whether as intrepreted today with the 14th amendment and other legal holdings that the court has made does the application of federal due process process under existing state laws which have valid same sex marriage laws require that the fundamental right to marry which has already been found in other federal cases, including Loving and other cases extend to same-sex couples. There is no federal right to a same-sex marriage, but also there is no federal right to an interracial marriage. there simply is no state right under the 14th amendment to prohibit it because it can not be regulated by the states and the federal government can not single out a class of people and deprive them of their rights. there are lots of rights that we have that are not federal rights, but the Constitution forbids the states and the federal government from singling us out from protection of the law. That is a verbal argument to a legal point that may not be valid, but is the type of reaching that is needed to make that final step in rhetoric along with the legal reasoning. See also the 9th Amendment that most people state really doesn't mean anything.

• 58. Carvel  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:12 pm

  This is an excellent explanation of the real reason that they want to strike the discovery.

• 59. Carvel  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:49 pm

  If we simply allow children to grow up to be the people they want to be with good rold models in both the house and in society then they will gorw and develope into who they want to be. That may be gay, transgendered or whatever. I am a gay male and I think I knew it as about the time I went through puberty. I identified as male and I like all things male. I wanted to dress and act male and was attracted to other males. I liked girls as friends, but I did not identify as a girl. I dated girls because that was the thing to do and I did have fund with them. I just was not interested in them sexually.

  the problem with little children and young adults is the adults. We have peer pressure and our own preconceived notions as to what we want and expect. However, if the parents know this about the child then they should have cautioned you so that you would not react negatively.

  It is certainly not what any parent wants, because it is always easier to raise a child that fits into the norm. However if the average family has 2.3 children, then how the H*** do you raise a 0.3 child to be normal. the answer is that normal is what the child wants and needs as long as it is not illegal. The problem with society is that we tend to want to make anything that is different illegal. The law was never meant to solve problems, just give us general rules to live within without taking away people's rights to live their lives.

• 60. Not disclosing at th  |  May 10, 2010 at 8:58 pm

  A person's sexuality matters in the workplace when that person forceably or in some other socially unacceptable way imposes it on others. I am not talking about their sexual orientation, but on simple polite edicute where the straight guys are constantly pushing themselves sexually on the women or women who constantly go after all the eligible men. I have seen women gang up on a pretty secretary and make her life miserable as she was too pretty. That is sexual harassment.

  I think you are stating that the sexual orientation of a person should not be a factor in the workplace as long as their sexual activities are left out of the workplace. I have no objection to someone who is straight or gay in the workplace, but leave the sex at home so we can get some work done.

  My office manager was my long term partner and we worked good together, but we left the sex at home. It helped that he was a former Air Force Sergeant with lots of administrative abilities. He was also in law enforcement in the military. At the office he kept me in line, but at home I ruled the house. that is why I brought him into the office, to keep me in line so I could get my work done. It worked too.

  A person's sexuality does not matter unless they wear it like a badge of honor and inflict it upon others for the purpose of making a statement of how foolish they are.

• 61. Matthew  |  May 10, 2010 at 9:52 pm

  But that argument is the same one bigots use to say that gays make people uncomfortable at work. They can hit on anyone they want and brag about their sexual exploits but as soon as the gay guy mentions he went to see a movie with his partner they get all defensive and want to complain your shoving your gayness down everyone's throat.

  Some of my straight friends called me 'militant' the other day because I try to be outspoken about the various equality fights going on. I try to keep them informed so hopefully the next time they vote it will be in favor of equality. But the notion that I'm militant because I speak openly about bigotry is absurd.

  If anyone at work is allowed personal conversations or fraternizing then everyone is.

• 62. ns  |  May 10, 2010 at 10:57 pm

  This child may well be trans, or may well not be. It is also quite possible that the kid is exploring, and wants to see what things are like. 5 year olds are developmentally engrossed in figuring out where they fit into larger society, and dress-up is a common part of that play. Children off all genders usually show interest in makeup, the clothing of adults, and firefighters at this age. It is definitely important to allow this kid to explore and choose a place in society. Please don't assume anything about the child's gender of choice. It would be just as bad to assume that this male must be a girl as it would be to assume that all males must be boys.

• 63. Richard A. Walter (s  |  May 10, 2010 at 11:12 pm

  I had a different experience with my mom. And in so many ways I feel so blessed. My mom grew up in the Great Depression, so she made sure that each of us knew how to cook, how to sew, how to clean the house, all of that. She may have grown up in the Depression, but she kept telling us "You don't know in this day and age taht you will be married your whole life, so you need to know how to do these things for yourself or you will have to pay someone else to do them for you." And what I did not realize until many years later is this. When I learned how to read a clothing pattern, I was also learning how to read a blueprint. To this day I enjoy sewing. Not only the basic things such as fixing a hem or replacing a button, but also when I can make something for the house, or clothes for my husband or myself or some other member of the family, and know that I sewed every stitch with love. Shun, go ahead and take that sewing class. If you lived closer to us, I would say come over here and I will show you.

• 64. Not disclosing at th  |  May 11, 2010 at 12:48 am

  I don't think it is in NY, it is in California Federal Court.

• 65. Not disclosing at th  |  May 11, 2010 at 1:03 am

  I agree. I think that there is a difference between being who you are and hiding it and the third choice of forcing your sexual advances on others. I find straight men and woman who consider the workplace their sexual playground offensive.

  If you allow social conversations where people talk about sexual things then fine. However, talking about going to see a movie is not sexual regardless of who you go with. I think that the bigots do not object to a gay person going to the movies with their partner, they object to the gay person actually talking about anything that even hints about being gay.

  On the other hand, then religious freedom would mean that if their church has a bake sale, you couldn't mention that at work either. There is a difference between not liking a behavior and talking about something that is purelylegal. Having a same sex partner is legal after 2003 case so they have to get over their feelings. I am talking about gay men hitting up on the other men and straight men hitting up on the women.

  I am objecting to sexual behavior and not social occasions. To a bigot, they object to anything. You talk about observing a religious holiday of any faith that is not theirs then they object. It is just that I have seen some offices which were actual battleground of sexual activity and it made me uncomfortable.

• 66. migueL  |  May 11, 2010 at 2:21 am

  Agreed. This may is one of those situations where you need to tread carefully, as her confirmation is likely more important to our community than ruffling the feathers of heteronormativity. One of the best lessons you can learn in life is to pick and choose your battles thoughtfully!

• 67. Michelle Evans  |  May 11, 2010 at 3:06 am

  Absolutely may or may not be trans. The point is to let the child lead the way, not the parent, school, or other "well-meaning" people. A simple test is to ask the child one basic question: Would you rather be called by male or female pronouns? If a male child says he would rather be called she, then run with it. If the kid finds it works, then great; if not, the child will say, "That isn't right," and go back to the way he was.

  Another big test would come when the child has started school. If the child wants to dress and be identified as the gender opposite to their birth gender, even at the ridicule of other students, then you can pretty well rest assured that the child is indeed trans.

  This is what happens with trans people of any age. When you get to the point where you don't care what other people might say about you presenting as the opposite gender, then this is the time when your true gender identity has asserted itself.

  If we can make that an easier decision for the children and give them the love and respect they deserve right from the start, then you will have a well adjusted and loving child with a great life ahead of them. If you instead fight it, making the male trans child play with firetrucks when he wants to play with Barbie dolls, then you are creating a situation harmful, and possibly even lethal, for that child.

• 68. Shun  |  May 11, 2010 at 3:14 am

  well it's not on my list of must-dos but would definitely try it out one day. Thanks for the offer too

• 69. Straight Grandmother  |  May 11, 2010 at 3:25 am

  Many thanks for you comments and observations. I have been around a lot of kids, I'm a grandmother after all. But I have never been around a little boy who acted like this, somehting is quite different with this little boy. I know dress up and how kids can cross dress during dress up at this age. This was not at all like that. Everything about this little boy was very feminin. He is VERY lucky that he has the family he has. I do remember my daughter telling me something about him but it was a while ago and now the boy is older and it has not been brought up again. So I was kind of shocked. I would not have had the same reaction had I been tipped off. Although for having to think on my feet I did very very well with the little boy.

  I guess it is like anything else with your children, we all wish for perfect children in every way but in the end love them and do the best for them that we can and in the end we all feel our children are perfect. At times like this I always think of the poor parents of children with physical disabilities and how their hearts must break for their children. Being born gay or even tran isn't the worst thing in the world after all, a lot of people have far worse problems.

• 70. Bruce  |  May 11, 2010 at 4:21 am

  I don't have any problem with Kagan's appointment unless she's closeted. IMHO, closeted officials tend to be among the most anti-gay, the most callous. If she's a lesbian, she should proudly admit it. Or she should just tell us it's none of our business, and brave the snide assumptions the NOM crowd will make. I can respect either tack, but lying from an appointee at this level is unacceptable.

• 71. John B.  |  May 11, 2010 at 5:19 am

  It shouldn't matter but it will, judging from all of the nasty, homophobic, and gay-baiting comments I have seen posted to virtually every online article about her. Even some of the "mainstream" media are getting into it; check out this muddled but rather slimy gay-baiting piece from the Washington Examiner, "Is Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan gay? In April, White House called report 'lie'": http://www.examiner.com/x-44562-National-News-Hea… (interesting side note: the author, the Examiner's national news headlines editor Michael Connelly, apparently copied several paragraphs for this article word-for-word from a Wikipedia article on Douglas Ginsburg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_H._Ginsburg.

• 72. fiona64  |  May 11, 2010 at 6:23 am

  John B., you can report the columnist for plagiarism (I used to be an Examiner columnist). There should be a "report" button next to the article, and you can articulate your reasons. I strongly recommend that you do; those reports are taken seriously by what they call the "channel manager," who is basically that reporter's editor.

  Love,
  Fiona

• 73. Bolt  |  May 11, 2010 at 9:46 am

  Is it true that Carol Corrigan, a California Supreme Court justice, is a lesbian? She penned the dissenting opinion in the 08' marriage case. According to her, LGBT's don't have a right to be married under the California constitution. If this is true then Kagan's sexual orientation shouldn't matter, and we could be screwed!

• 74. Elizabeth  |  May 11, 2010 at 10:18 am

  If the pubs, desperately pandering before the Nov elections, really jump all over sexual orientation disguised as"family values", how excited will Jeff Sessions be? and how vigorously will he participate? Oh hypocrisy! thy name is misery. Sort of like being on You-tube carrying the luggage of the "Rent-a-boy" you hire to carry your luggage because you are injured.

• 75. Zoe Brain  |  May 11, 2010 at 2:45 pm

  Odds are he'll just be a gay or possibly bi boy. That's 2 chances in 3. Only one chance in 3 is she a girl.

  That's if the behaviour persists over a long period. It may be "just a phase" if it lasts less than three months. No great drama then. If it lasts longer, over years, but peters out long before puberty, he'll just be gay.

  But… if he's still like it at 10, time to see a gender specialist, as she's transsexual. A so-called "primary" one at that. Without treatment to help transition, half of those attempt suicide by age 20, few are still alive at 25.

  With treatment, they're often above-average, creative, intelligent and talented.

  Feel free to contact me on this. I can give you primary sources for my assertions, and give advice on which therapists to avoid. For God's sake, don't take him to George Rekers for example.

• 76. Marlene  |  May 12, 2010 at 3:20 am

  SG — First, there's nothing wrong with being creeped out, as you haven't been exposed to what you thought was a boy acting so much like a girl.

  But please realize that this child is as much of a girl, because she was born one where it counts: between the ears.

  I'm so glad to see more and more parents acknowledging their child's gender identity, and finding ways of accepting their differences and allowing their differences to shine.

• 77. Bruce  |  May 12, 2010 at 6:21 am

  Apparently Kagan is openly hetero to her friends. Case closed AFAIAC. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37114.h…

• 78. diane  |  May 12, 2010 at 8:12 am

  Kagan's sexual orientation shouldn't matter at all. We don't ever ask if someone is heterosexual, why would ever ask if someone is homosexual. It is irrelevant to the job they are performing.

• 79. Fluffyskunk  |  May 12, 2010 at 8:57 am

  A child's choice of toys or activities is not indicative of their future sexual orientation or gender identity. That is an unfortunate stereotype that I'm surprised to see on this site out of all places.

• 80. Kathleen  |  May 12, 2010 at 9:13 am

  I've deferred this discussion to those who might best understand – those who are themselves transgendered.

  However, my own experience as a child and as a parent has been that toy selection, or even clothing choices doesn't necessarily determine gender identify or sexual orientation.

  My oldest son was fascinated with purses – asked for one for his fourth birthday and continued to play with them for quite a few years. He also liked to swap clothes with other kids at pre-school, and then we'd have to call him by the name of the person whose clothes he was wearing. Most of the swaps were with boys, but some were girls. He grew up identifying entirely with being male and is straight. He is, however, an actor by profession.

• 81. Carvel  |  May 12, 2010 at 10:40 am

  You are correct that it is not a FIRM indication of future sexual orientation. However, I think you are confusing noticing something which is unusual with being judgmental or against it. The favorite subject of parents and grandparents are their children. parents all want to know why a child does certain things and asks questions of did what they do toward a child have any effect on the child.

  We are now finding that many gay and transgendered children are exhibiting different symptoms or characteristics at an early age if we are sensitive to their behaviors. We discuss these things to be sensitive and not to be prejudgmeng or judgmental to the child.

  A child's interest and facination usually has a reason and a purpose, but not always sexual. It could be their interests in things and their facination with how things work. All that we can do is to see and observe that behavior and try to not supress it unless it is destructive or hateful to the child or others. I am talking about being unkind or mean to animals or other children and the like.

  Stereotypes exist for a reason, because there is something behind them. Usually it is fear and hatred or silly superstition. We are trying to replace it with insight to help a child and a person understand who they are and not to be judgmental. But your point is well taken.

• 82. Richard A. Walter (s  |  May 12, 2010 at 11:45 am

  To normal people it is irrelevant. However, the folks who are harassing everyone about Ms. Kagan's sexual orientation are far from normal. They are radicals posing as Christians who are trying to force everyone in this country to follow their form of religion and only their form of religion. To them, it matters because they know that an LGBTQQI would not vote to take away rights from others.

Leave a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.