Is She Gay? Or, Isn't She? And, Why Should We Care?

The left is desperately trying to keep the world from actually knowing if Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, is homosexual. This is out of character for liberals that are usually the protectors and defenders of gays. Normally, they would be putting her gayness on a pedestal to aggressively maintain and court the gay voting block. But, in this case, they know that, if it should come out that Kagan is gay, she could lose the nomination. That's because, in one of the few things we know about her, she may have allowed her sexual preference to cloud her judgment.

It all goes back to Bill Clinton's back-down on allowing gays to openly serve in the military. In an attempt to squelch the firestorm of opposition, he formulated "Don't Ask..Don't Tell" so that gays could serve without the fear of being discharged for their sexual preference. However, serving openly was still barred under the decision. It was a compromise that didn't set well with the gay community. And, it certainly didn't set well with Elena Kagan, who, at the time, was the Dean of Harvard Law School. In fact, and in retaliation, she used the power of her position to ban any military recruitment on the Harvard campus. Further, she signed on to a lawsuit that went all the way up to the Supreme Court and, which, was intended to overturn the "Don't Ask...Don't Tell" executive order from Clinton. To her dismay, she was resoundingly rebuked with a 9-zip decision in support of Clinton's order.

What the left is afraid of, and rightly so, is that her action after "Don't Ask...Don't Tell" may reveal that she made an emotional decision and, in doing so, pushed thoughtful deliberation and logic aside. One, then, has to wonder how many of those "emotional" decisions she will try to make if she becomes a member of the highest order of legal opinion in our country. I think it clearly shows a flaw in Kagan; and, not one that can be easily overlooked.

The fact that she is or isn't gay should never be a deciding point in whether or not she should or shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. But, the fact that she might not be a good arbiter of the law is extremely important.