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.
The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?
My emphasis. Substitute "Jew" or "Catholic" or "person of color" or "Muslim" and you get to see how low Christianism has sunk in this country.
Sullivan makes this interesting point:
The days are past when this could be brushed under the rug. Let's have an honest debate, can we? The way to counter prejudice is through truth - not avoidance. For the right to oppose Kagan merely because she is gay - if she is - would be one more step toward their self-destruction. By staying mum, the Obamites may be playing yet another rope-a-dope. I just cannot see how in 2010, ambiguity is an option. I mean: who would claim that John Roberts' heterosexuality is somehow private? It is a demonstrably reported fact that there would now be no Protestants on the court - just Catholics and Jews. Why is this not an invasion of privacy, if asking someone about their sexual orientation is?
Because, Andrew, Christianists use the bible to assert with certainty that homosexual behavior is the same thing as pedophilia or bestiality. And selecting a (potentially) gay person for a position on the highest court in the country means that Obama has sold America to Satan. I certainly don't believe that, of course, but if you're wondering why they want to keep that issue front and center, there it is. There can be no other.