Defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity.
Encompassing the marriage related topics of gendered biology, kin anthropology, family law and policy.
Comment Policy
Disputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.
Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.
It’s a trap, folks. Speculating on Elena Kagan’s sexuality is a no-win.
Be sure to read the whole piece at his site. He's absolutely right. Being gay doesn't mean you will make bad decisions, and bad decisions are easily detected on their own.
I have to disagree. If she is homosexual she is more likely to make self-serving decisions that undermine the morality of Christian America. If there is a doubt in our minds we best steer clear of her and keep looking.
Being that she was the dean of Harvard Law School, which is located in Cambridge Massachusetts I assume it would be publicly known if she was gay or not.
Some people just are single, and that's OK no matter their orientation. I do have problems with high rates of non-marriage/low fertility, but I would never want any particular individual who never wants to marry and feels called to non-marital vocation feel compelled to.
This whole Andrew Sullivan rumor mill feels so 'jr. high/witch hunt' trying to call out a person as gay, and the person has no recourse to prove it otherwise what to perform a sexual act on the opposite sex. What do these rumor mongers want, some perverted proof? Eww... What did Andrew Sullivan run out of gas going after Sarah Palin?
My point is much more simple then that though. Whether or not she is gay (I really don't care) her decisions and theories show what she is going to undermine or uphold.
As I wrote on my namesake blog, the questions I would ask her or any nominee are centered on that the Constitution means. I don't care what sexual orientation, religion, skin color, or sex the nominee is. If they understand that their decisions need to be guided by the Constitution, and that they are limited to doing only what the Constitution tells them to do (and, likewise, Congress and the President are limited to doing only what the Constitution tells them to do), then they will make a good Justice. Check out my namesake blog for some questions I would ask if I was on the Senate panel.
Maybe the problem isn't with Supreme Court Nominees, but rather our Constitution needs to add on a few amendments via the legislative/state approval process... the only way eventually to get those amendments is to consistently vote our consciences even at a local level, because that is where state/federal elected officials usually come from.
Sudarta143, aside from being patently offensive (should we oppose all black candidates, too, on the theory that blacks are more likely to support affirmative action?!), your argument is eerily reminiscent of the ones the conservative Democrats used to justify joining with their liberal counterparts to bork Bork. Their theory was, in essence, that as an (alleged/disputed) agnostic, Bork could not be trusted to be sufficiently committed to the pro-life cause, therefore, to borrow your words, they'd "best steer clear of [him] and keep looking." They did, and ended up with a staunch Catholic they were sure they could trust to hold the line on abortion: Anthony Kennedy.
I have to disagree. If she is homosexual she is more likely to make self-serving decisions that undermine the morality of Christian America. If there is a doubt in our minds we best steer clear of her and keep looking.
ReplyDeleteBeing that she was the dean of Harvard Law School, which is located in Cambridge Massachusetts I assume it would be publicly known if she was gay or not.
ReplyDeleteSome people just are single, and that's OK no matter their orientation. I do have problems with high rates of non-marriage/low fertility, but I would never want any particular individual who never wants to marry and feels called to non-marital vocation feel compelled to.
This whole Andrew Sullivan rumor mill feels so 'jr. high/witch hunt' trying to call out a person as gay, and the person has no recourse to prove it otherwise what to perform a sexual act on the opposite sex. What do these rumor mongers want, some perverted proof? Eww... What did Andrew Sullivan run out of gas going after Sarah Palin?
Sudarta,
ReplyDeleteMy point is much more simple then that though. Whether or not she is gay (I really don't care) her decisions and theories show what she is going to undermine or uphold.
As I wrote on my namesake blog, the questions I would ask her or any nominee are centered on that the Constitution means. I don't care what sexual orientation, religion, skin color, or sex the nominee is. If they understand that their decisions need to be guided by the Constitution, and that they are limited to doing only what the Constitution tells them to do (and, likewise, Congress and the President are limited to doing only what the Constitution tells them to do), then they will make a good Justice. Check out my namesake blog for some questions I would ask if I was on the Senate panel.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the problem isn't with Supreme Court Nominees, but rather our Constitution needs to add on a few amendments via the legislative/state approval process... the only way eventually to get those amendments is to consistently vote our consciences even at a local level, because that is where state/federal elected officials usually come from.
ReplyDeleteSudarta143, aside from being patently offensive (should we oppose all black candidates, too, on the theory that blacks are more likely to support affirmative action?!), your argument is eerily reminiscent of the ones the conservative Democrats used to justify joining with their liberal counterparts to bork Bork. Their theory was, in essence, that as an (alleged/disputed) agnostic, Bork could not be trusted to be sufficiently committed to the pro-life cause, therefore, to borrow your words, they'd "best steer clear of [him] and keep looking." They did, and ended up with a staunch Catholic they were sure they could trust to hold the line on abortion: Anthony Kennedy.
ReplyDelete