She is a defender of RACISM - there is no more discussion needed on her merits. Case CLOSED.

==========

Another set of documents detailed Kagan's work in helping to shape the manuscript for a book on race relations that was to be published under President Clinton's name. Kagan advised against the inclusion of a drafted passage that would have suggested that racism was often the motivation for urban police stopping and searching "persons of color."

The manuscript stated that such encounters involve a "disproportionate" number of minorities and that "there are just too many examples, some horrific, to ignore the problem." Presented with these statements in a March 26, 1999, memorandum, Kagan wrote in the margin: "I don't know what this refers to, but I wonder whether we want to be arguing here."

\begin{quotation}{Rabbi Brad Hirschfield}

While I don't like to thump the Bible, it's hard not be reminded of Leviticus 24:22 - You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike.

\end{quotation}{Rabbi Brad Hirschfield}

Talk of Israeli criminal apartheid non-state entity.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, you have to write yourself, not send a proxy "Daniel in the lions den" - which he would dare not since the lion would be extra vicious from this guys homosexuality in treating him like Roman Polansky.

Readers, can you see this little demo by this Daniel, how hard is it to deal with these "Academic Types" . I want to a jewish controlled institute (ivy league) and saw that in the name of HUMANITIES they actually teach DISHONESTY and how to cook rationalizations and argue both sides of a point that to FIND THE TRUTH which is a very hard work indeed. FILIBUSTER TRAINING is the word for humanities. I characterize this as a disease or cancer of the reasoning and problem solving mechanisms.

The logical fallacies can be immediately discovered by replacing gay or lesbian by NAZI and COMMUNIST and other words by HOLOCAUST or PALESTINIANS.

test

There is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian. This is not a sin. Gay and lesbians are fine and good people. Conservative Republicans do not want a gay or lesbian person on the Supreme Court because that would obstruct their agenda of continued persecution of gay people.

There is no religious justification for anti-gay feelings; religioun is merely a cynical cover for the justification and personal expression of hatred for ones fellow man. The Catholic Church does it; the Southern Baptist Church does it; the Mormons do it; Islam does it; but this nasty and ugly attitude has nothing to do with any supposed or real religious belief, but instead, contrasted to a modern paradigm of existence, only serves to discredit and undermine the religious point of view EVEN MORE.

I would just love to hear Seneator Jeff Sessioms, in his squeaky, sissy little voice, ask if Elena Kagan is a lesbian.

Dear Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, we are holding our breath to hear your rationalization on how you justify it contrary to the Holy Torah ??? and at the same time make 300K - no mean sum.

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

OK, now it is time for all orthodox rabbis like Hirschfield to step up to the plate and defend the Torah!!! If they cannot, then the Torah is simply a document created by humans for humans. And again note that Rabbi Hirschfield makes $300,000/yr to defend the god-inspired Torah.

=======================
Yes, Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, you are indeed reading these comments. I would ask you to engage the previous commentator because s/he is the one who has brought the most logical issue and forgetting the past, we now engage in a very respectable argument. We have a very strong argument so we do not need to engage in any name calling now.

Dear Original Poster, where is the electronic copy of this Holy Torah translation located ? Is there a pdf for download ?

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

OK, now it is time for all orthodox rabbis like Hirschfield to step up to the plate and defend the Torah!!! If they cannot, then the Torah is simply a document created by humans for humans. And again note that Rabbi Hirschfield makes $300,000/yr to defend the god-inspired Torah.

BLACK
Mail. "Ask. Tell." otherwise the possibility of black mail in a less perfect Union undermines the chain of command who has ordered us to form...

COMPUTER
"Two kinds of questions"; xref: 'Le' and 'La'; xref: animus and anima; xref: Ramadan and Eide. Should a computer be able to be a judge? Why? [crk\]

GROW
Up America.

The court needs the diversity of a CHRISTIAN Arab American.

If there is any constitutional intellect that I can see, it is RALPH NADER. He understands the CONSTITUTION in his bones and blood and knows what "The People" means.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scUsyBagOmA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR-V6bl41zU

She will favor zionist criminals who have been selling PALESTINIAN ORGANS and BODY parts in the USA, like the ones FBI caught recently.

Justice Thomas was interrogated right down to the "short hairs" (literally) by the Vice President of the United States.

Obviously if he and the other Obama henchmen think sexual examinations are required to demonstrate one's judicial temperament then what's good for the black man should be good for the white woman.

In any case, when you have a candidate without a track record of any kind the interrogations should be much more thorough than with a sitting job with a wide-ranging and extensive set of opinions.

POSTED BY: MUAWIYAH | MAY 13, 2010 10:34 PM

___________

Ms. Kagan should not be appointed because she has never been a judge and because the Court needs the diversity that a Protestant would bring. Nonetheless, the sex stuff is as irrelevant here as it was for Justice Thomas. Weird about that appointment hearing was the necessity to force almost every singe witness to be contrite. The confessions never ceased.

Truth be told, it always seemed too slick. Most likely the hearing was a Hill-Thomas conspiracy to cover up the Justices predilection for young Hawaiian men.

@onealethia

What kind of crap are you spewing?

It seems that the judgmental person is you.

Wow, so I guess you are one of those kind of christians, full of hate for things that are not in your agenda or belief system.

WWJD??

Not be like you.

Homosexual Senators and Lesbian supreme court nominees are a mark of God's judgment on our nation.

Romans1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

We always joked (or at least I was joking) about how we'd pack the court with lesbians once we got the White House back. Apparently some people weren't kidding at all.

As a conservative, I hope the Bible thumping, anti-gay/fag/homo, idiots go to hell in a hand bag. If this woman likes boys or girls or both or none is of no importance. The reports that she is anti-1st and anti 2nd Amendment is of concern. The fact she has no experience for the job is so Obama that one can not be aghast, aghast I say. You got wrong people in the govment financial sector, health sector, Senate, House and White House. Enough.

Justice Thomas was interrogated right down to the "short hairs" (literally) by the Vice President of the United States.

Obviously if he and the other Obama henchmen think sexual examinations are required to demonstrate one's judicial temperament then what's good for the black man should be good for the white woman.

In any case, when you have a candidate without a track record of any kind the interrogations should be much more thorough than with a sitting job with a wide-ranging and extensive set of opinions.

By the way, I'm watching a show about volcanos on the island of Fiji, so I do have to give "Christians" some credit; "Christians" would never waste a perfectly good virgin by throwing her into a volcano.

It's nice to see that America's "Christians" have something on which to agree with the Taliban, that homosexuals deserve to be killed (the Apostle Paul even said so in his epistle to the Romans; curiously though Jesus, a single man who never married, NEVER condemned homosexuality or homosexuals).

I don't get it. Why would anyone think Ms. Kagan is gay? Because she's not married? Now, that is just downright mean. I'm old enough to remember that some women never met the man they wanted to marry or were proposed to by the man they DID want to marry. Those were the breaks.

So being unmarried did not mean you were gay. That is just plain insulting - yes, insulting! to the poor woman. And no, people aren't saying it because they are afraid of gays, for God's sake; they are saying it to be mean because, for other reasons, they don't think she should be on the Supreme Court.

Perhaps sexuality should be irrelevant, but then the Supreme Court is not just any job, and nominees have been disqualified for all sorts of personal details that would probably draw lawsuits if these were the hiring policies at most companies or government agencies.

. . .

Posted by: blert | May 13, 2010 9:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The only way to know for sure is to monitor nominees with a 24 hour camera. The notion of studying Justice Scalia in this fashion is a bit revolting. It would be especially problematic since great care would be required when nominees enter copses. Most use such walks to subserve other bodily functions.

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST

Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening speech. This speech is an explanation of the plans now being laid to throw the United States into a third world war. It was made a short time ago before a large group in the Congressional `Room of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. Both the speech and the question and answer period later so electrified the audience that a group of patriots has transferred it to two long-playing records which you may buy to play for friends, clubs, and your church group in your community. The speaker is Mr. Benjamin Freedman, noted authority on Zionism and all of its schemes. Mr. Freedman is a former Jew, and I mean a FORMER Jew. He has fought the Communist world conspiracy tooth and nail, and stands today as a leading American patriot. We now take you to the speaker's platform to present Benjamin Freedman.

(applause)

[Freedman's speech]

What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity. I'm not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I'm here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians.

There are several good comments by me below.

The author photo looks more like a gangster like ROMAN POLANSKY or Bernard Madoff than a RABBI.

I think the comments on this blog show the nature of the objection very well - unrelentingly suspicious and homophobic.

My objection to such views is not because I am unsympathetic to religious views, but because it amounts to a gross generalization completely divorced from any facts based merely on beliefs.

Moreover, there is no measurable harm in this world even if we accept the judgments. That means, we would, if we accept these views, assume guilt without proof and thereby condemn a group to baseless persecution.

I disagree with the commenter who says government enforces morals. It does not. The role of government should NOT be to be a moral police. That is an infringement of individual liberty. The role of government should be to regulate action to reduce harm to others - i.e. to protect the lambs from the lions, unless, that is, the lamb consented to being eaten.

I simply do not care about her sexuality. I don't care about anyone's sexuality. However, I do think it's funny that "YEALS" clearly quoted from Sparknotes "The Bible" instead of providing the actual verses. That's like the third generation of a game of Telephone - something is bound to get mistranslated, misunderstood, or purposely altered.

What I do not understand is people like you quoting the Bible just to suit your purposes. That directive was provided to the Jews in the light of them having concern for aliens. Kagan is not an alien. And if you have any honesty in you, you will also cite those passages in the Bible that consider homosexuality to be a sin and an abhorrence before God.

Why were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? It was largely because of their homosexuality behavior. The men of these cities had wanted to have sex with the angels of God who had the appearance of men - despite Lot's plea with them to have his daughters instead(See Genesis 19). Apostle Paul was more poignant about God's displeasure with homosexuality as a sin in his analysis about God's wrath against mankind in Romans 1 verses 26&27 of this chapter read: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones (choice). In the same way the men also 'abandoned' natural relations with women (deliberate choice) and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts (sin) with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

I object most strenuously to The Post's permitting Hirschfield to write his own ludicrously puffed up identification blurb "About Brad Hirschfield": acclaimed this and acclaimed that. Preposterous. He is a smug, vain, preening bully who does not deserve a place here. Shame on Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn.

If there is any constitutional intellect that I can see, it is RALPH NADER. He understands the CONSTITUTION in his bones and blood and knows what "The People" means.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scUsyBagOmA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR-V6bl41zU

She will favor zionist criminals who have been selling PALESTINIAN ORGANS and BODY parts in the USA, like the ones FBI caught recently.

If a Supreme Court nominee were married to a goat, would that have any bearing on their competence?

If a Supreme Court nominee believed they were Jesus, would that have any bearing on their competence?

If a Supreme Court nominee could fly, would that have any bearing on their competence?

If a Supreme Court nominee were romantically attracted to little children, would that have any bearing on their competence?

If a Supreme Court nominee ate people, would that have any bearing on their competence?

If a Supreme Court nominee were a member of the Ku Klux Klan, would that have any bearing on their competence?

Just asking.

The reason why Conservatives are so obsessed with other people's sexuality is because many Conservative Politicians and non-political conservatives are "closet" gays.

Please pardon me for squawking.

"Raising questions about Kagan's sexuality can only be driven by one of two things."

Really? There are only two possibilities? I'll have to think about which one applies to me since you have so limited the choices.

"We should never hear another word about Ms. Kagan's sexual orientation, or that of any other person aspiring to the bench."

The law is about right and wrong.

Occasionally someone says, "You can't legislate morality."

Actually that is the only thing that laws do--legislate morality. Laws provide direction, punishment, and rewards based on what is right and what is wrong.

Questions about what are right and wrong with regard to sexual behavior are not new. Some current topics in our society, such as homosexual behavior, are under review.

These questions are far from settled. Where Ms. Kagan stands on these topics are relevant to her qualification to sit on the court. It is legitimate and just to ask where any nominee stands on this topic.

Then the people can judge whether or not they want that person to apply the law.

I would advocate Rabbi Dovid Weiss of NETUREI Karta, www.nkusa.org as a fit person on the supreme court.

The title is incorrect. I do not believe that anyone cares about Kagan's sexuality in the slightest; however, how she votes on different subjects is of great concern to everyone.

Perhaps sexuality should be irrelevant, but then the Supreme Court is not just any job, and nominees have been disqualified for all sorts of personal details that would probably draw lawsuits if these were the hiring policies at most companies or government agencies.

I mean, should religious belief (or lack thereof) be relevant in a SCOTUS nomination? By the same standard as someone might want to leave sexuality out of the equation, religion should probably be off the table, too. Yet there the Democratic senators were sniping at Robert Bork's apparent agnosticism, voting against him because they felt that he did not have a committed enough religious belief.

And really, if we are playing the identity politics that liberals love, shouldn't a person's identity as straight or gay be completely relevant to the Court? If the Court is supposed to "represent" a cross-section in America in some respect, and if it is supposed to have diversity, then whether or not a nominee is gay is completely relevant to the question of whether to put the person on the court. Sotomayor made the case that she would bring unique perspectives to the court as a "wise Latina woman," and if a nominee happens to be a lesbian, then wouldn't she bring new and different perspectives to legal interpretations on this basis, too?

In short, if you say that Kagan's sexuality should be irrelevant, then you're also saying that it is irrelevant whether a member of the court is male or female, black or white or Asian or Hispanic, Protestant or Jewish or Muslim or Catholic, or anything else that is normally deemed as "personal." To make this claim is essentially to deny identity politics at all.

Personally, I'm O.K. with this. Let's start doing some blind hiring of SCOTUS justices, evaluating them on their resumes and body of work alone, and let's stop worrying about any details from their personal lives. But if we do this and we happen to randomly end up with all white males on the court, or all Catholics, or all Hispanic lesbians, or whatever, nobody will have the right to complain that the Court is imbalanced or unrepresentative of America because details like sexuality, religion, and race shouldn't matter, right?

She is VERY FAMOUSLY on the record as being adamantly opposed to "Don't ask, Don't tell", so the question is relevant on several grounds. First, military readiness and cohesion (i.e. defense of the country) coulod be adversely affected by a court decision. Second, other issues - gay marriage, teaching little kids how to be gay, et cetera, will be litigated. Third, she THREW MILITARY RECRUITERS OFF CAMPUS BECAUSE OF A POLICY PROMULGATED BY THE CIC. This could go on at some length. The bottom line is, we all know the LGBTQICAAPDQRPA crowd is shoving this stuff in the face of America, SO LET'S MAKE AN ISSUE ABOUT IT, GIRLS AND GIRLS.

Her agenda is relevant.

The Obama freak show continues. He is going to appoint the three-legged man and the spider-lady next, but don't worry - they went to Harvard!

If there is any constitutional intellect that I can see, it is RALPH NADER. He understands CONSTITUTION in his bones and blood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR-V6bl41zU

Ms Kagan's brain is no more than AMOEBA.

It will be very hard for her to understand the spirit of the constitution. The NECONS want to bring a KHAZAR QUEEN to the supreme court throne so that they can commit NEW LEVEL CRIMES in the PUPPETSHIP of Obama - i mean a nuclear holocaust in DAMASCUS. She is a WORDSMITH and the university types know how to cook lies and RATIONALIZATIONS - for the criminal MAFIA.

If there is any constitutional intellect that I can see, it is RALPH NADER. He understands CONSTITUTION in his bones and blood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M8tIP8d56g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g8LKp-EFDE

We get it Rabbi. You want another jew on the Supreme Court. End of discussion.

Does she carry an Israeli passport as well?

The logic behind this article is flawed - first the case is made that an identity-based court is good,

HOWEVER, opponents are not allowed to argue anything identity-based.

Brad Hirschfield - Shame on you for writing this article.

.

It is the liberals again - wanting everything their way - and they are completely full of it.

LEGALLY - no there is nothing illegal about any of these questions.

Robert Gibbs stepped into this mess a few weeks ago - stating clearly that Kagan was not "openly gay" - now that is POTENTIALLY A MISLEADING STATEMENT.

It is really WRONG for the White House to make such a statement on a nominee when JUST THE OPPOSITE MAY BE TRUE.

So Gibbs opened it up - and at the VERY LEAST THE WHITE HOUSE HAS TO CLEAR IT UP.

>> There are several gay issues which may come before the Court - so therefore it IS relevant.

This administration is NOTHING BUT IDENTITY -BASED - AND THAT MAKES IT RELEVANT.

One has to have talent but it helps to have a wide, deep ethnic network like Kagan's to "polish your apple" non-stop.

Question for WaPo hacks: How to dance around the issue of Kagan's lesbianism? Want to get out the word to the true believer leftists that Barry picked a lesbian but still want to shut everyone up who does not think that is such a great idea.

If the is hiding that from the American people what else is she hiding about her leftist ideology?

But in the US you cannot even play golf without having your sex life dissected. What is so special about High Court Judges?

We have NEOKONS in white house - Rahm Emanuel (Israeli citizen) and Axelrod drive Obama.

We have NEOCONS in the Media, NYTIMES has Thomas Friedman who is as devious as Stalin. Krauthammer in LA times, and Farid Zakaria in time and so many in washington post and times.

We have NEOCONS in the Academia.

Now, is it not SUICIDAL to put a Neocon in supreme court ? Should we not have an ENLIGHTENED and MAJORITARIAN , CHRISTIAN Arab like Ralph Nader in Supreme Court ???? The Congress should STOP her Confirmation and Obama should propose Ralph Nader or else his Egypt speech is a FARCE !!!

Although I do think it would be wiser to have a Protestant for diversity purposes, none can disagree about the sexual orientation stuff.

A big reason is that, numbers being what they are, it is not at all impossible for one of the other justices to be gay. Once you start opening closets, there's no stopping. The next thing you know, they start opening the closets on the Federal judges, then candidates for state supreme court justices, then candidates for local judges.

Why stop there? Surely prosecutors must have as high, if not even higher, moral standards.

Not only is Ms. Kagan's sexual orientation irrelevant, it would be the acme of folly to even look into such matters.

Here's Folly singing her song, by the by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1EE6CSIo6A

If there is any constitutional intellect that I can see, it is RALPH NADER. He understands CONSTITUTION in his bones and blood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR-V6bl41zU

Ms Kagan's brain is no more than AMOEBA.

It will be very hard for her to understand the spirit of the constitution. The NECONS want to bring a KHAZAR QUEEN to the throne so that they can commit NEW LEVEL CRIMES in the PUPPETSHIP of Obama. She is a WORDSMITH and the university types know how to cook lies and RATIONALIZATIONS - for the criminal MAFIA.

If there is any constitutional intellect that I can see, it is RALPH NADER. He understands CONSTITUTION in his bones and blood.

Human nature is such that there will never be 100% consensus about Ms Kagan appointment. She has more brains in her little finger that Clarence Thomas has in his whole, fat body. Why was he nominated by Pres. Bush and barely approved by the Senate? He should have been sent packing.
Ms Kagan will do great and I hope she lives to be 90 and capable of doing her job for 40 years.

@scott3 says:

Let me explain it this way. If I were Obama, and I wanted to ensure my court pick was a radical liberal and would stay a radical liberal, I would choose a lesbian university woman. Why? Because those womyn are wacked! She is going to be much more unlikely to turn her back on her radical ideology than a straight woman.

==========================
@scott3 your INSIGHT is RIGHT ON THE MARK.

It is true that university types, DIVORCED from REALITY will be very difficult to tackle and very devious when they want to be esp in this job there is absolutely no oversight other than GOD which she does not have. A Lesbian Khazar = Atheist khazar tribalism derived from VICTIMHOOD - Exactly like ROMAN POLANSKY.

but you YANKQUIS have to SLAP YOUR OWN FACES for your racism that prevents you from advocating an ARAB CHRISTIAN like Ralph Nader.

Now, I purposely promoted/proposed a CHRISTIAN Arab because I know where you stand in your racism.

If you can give an alternative Candidate, you have better chance of DEFEATING her approval.

Edward Said was killed by MOSSAD.

Everyone watched the dubai police videos ???

How much length they go to make it look like a natural death ???

Well, Arafat was killed by a method that gave him cancer and so was Edward Said. Before 911 inside job operation, they gave cancer to everyone , edward said, then chief justice was in chemotherapy on the eve of 911 - and ineffective.

The JEW and CAUCASIAN controlled system should give a chance to COMPETENT Arab Christian of PROVEN Competence like

Ralph Nader

Twice a presidential candidate.

I urge people to go and watch his video lecture on youtube. Very inspiration, analytical and with KNOWN TRACK RECORD !!!

Very presidential and imposing, he commands respect by his UPRIGHTNESS ...

The TRULY DESERVING candidate is RALPH NADER and not Elena Kagan Khazar.

The TRULY DESERVING candidate is RALPH NADER and not Elena Kagan Khazar.

The TRULY DESERVING candidate is RALPH NADER and not Elena Kagan Khazar.

The TRULY DESERVING candidate is not RALPH NADER and not Elena Kagan Khazar.

The TRULY DESERVING candidate is not RALPH NADER and not Elena Kagan Khazar.

The TRULY DESERVING candidate is not RALPH NADER and not Elena Kagan Khazar.

Elena Kagan may be very intelligent, but as we learned with Bill Clinton, intelligence is not the same as virtue, morality or good judgment.
Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court would mean that there were two middle-aged, unmarried women on the Court. I respect the fact that there is room for their point of view, but I question their ability, as I do with Roman Catholic priests, to understand the issues affecting most Americans.

This column topic is a cheap trick. It keeps a live a rumor. It is meant to damage. I'd expect it from the Far Right righteous set, but am a little surprised at the Post....only a little. Shame on you.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Why is her sexuality important?
It really isn't. She is just not a good choice. She has defied that law of our land by trying blaming the military for something that congress and the president did. It was "Billy Boy" Clinton that started the "don't ask Don't tell" policy.
Now "Barry Boy" wants to put her on the supreme court.
She will be confirmed, but who gives a crap.
Obama has a history of screwing up everything he touches and then blaming someone else.
Thank god that the presidency has term limits. The rest of the congress should be subject to term limits too.

the ODIOUS jew has started censorship on my comments.

@jbailey - sexual harrassment and discrimination are vastly different from sexual orientation. Justice Thomas' confirmation hearings were not an inquiry into his sexual preferences, but rather an inquiry into his ethical conduct.

@Lightdee - Supreme Court justices are not political leaders. Chief Justice Roberts said it best: "Judges are not politicians. They cannot promise to do certain things in exchange for votes."

The ONLY issue here is Kagan's record on interpreting the law.

There is no such thing as God!

Jesus did not exist.

All the world religions are myths used by people like the U.S. government to repress its sheep.

While I fully support the rights of all citizens, Ms. Kagan is giving up being an ordinary citizen by becoming a member of the Supreme Court for life with little recourse for removal. All aspects of her life are fair game, just as with previous nominees, including sexuality. Journalists and political thinkers (self appointed and others) can't be selective in their approach to public figures and this is expecially true for the Supreme Court.

So we should know.

Yeal9, please stop with the Bible references. The bible also says that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations - Leviticus 25:44. And that I may sell my daughter into slavery - Exodus 21:7. And that I must wash after touching a seat used by a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Leviticus 15:19-24. And that burning a bull on the altar as a sacrifice creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Leviticus 1:9. We're talking about a culture that has progressed several millenia beyond those "rules".

ThorneGP - Kagan has done no such thing. I don't think she is married is she? Her sexual orientation says nothing about her ability to interpret the constitution.

Yeah why is her sexuality important in politics ?

The same question I ask the zionist jew author of the article ?!!!!

why they promote jews and zionists in careers, politics, insider info and so on ???

EVERY WHERE jew promote jew.

I have seen it in business, academia, hospitals, medicine and all occupations.

@JohnStufflebeem: "In a country with such diverse views as the US it is not possible for any topic, including this one, to be discounted or irrelevant for the Supreme bench. Obviously it is a matter of perspective. However, individual perspectives are meaningless considering only Members of the Senate will sit in judgement. That said, it would seem the issue becomes acutely relevant if her conduct - regardless her orientation - is outrageous or activist."

Please describe "conduct...[that] is outrageous or activist."

My guess is that its definition merely encompasses conduct of which you disapprove.

I am an activist for individual liberty, respect for human and civil rights, and justice that is not superseded by vindictiveness. From your point of view does that render me unfit for public service?

Anyone who aspires to be a political leader (supreme court justice certainly falls into this category) should have to answer questions about his/her personal beliefs.

If you are going to decide what the law is that I have to live under, then I have the right to know what kind of a person you are. Our political leaders' opinions about sexuality matter, because laws will be made and unmade about this which will affect people all over the country.

All the arguments I have read contrary to this are either disingenuous, hipocritical, or have been made by people who are just venting and haven't thought it out.

In a country with such diverse views as the US it is not possible for any topic, including this one, to be discounted or irrelevant for the Supreme bench. Obviously it is a matter of perspective. However, individual perspectives are meaningless considering only Members of the Senate will sit in judgement. That said, it would seem the issue becomes acutely relevant if her conduct - regardless her orientation - is outrageous or activist.

Well, it is not legal to ask the question of sexual orientation in a job interview. So it appears this issue is off limits which is as it should be.

If the govt did not have a long precedent of trying to regulate adult sex, we would not have such a controversy. And if what happens in the bedroom is "nobody's business" then the govt should be discriminating against gay marriage or regulating other matters of adult privacy such as consenting adult prostitution....which should not be criminal.

You cant have it both ways by saying "the bedroom is off limits" and then stage a police entrapment to catch Johns and prostitutes

Did they ask David Souter is he was gay? Why is it ok for a man to be a "confirmed bachelor," but not a woman?

Can't wait for Mitch McConnell and/or Lindsay Graham to ask Kagan if she's gay!

"It's the legal conservatives and so-called strict constructionists who argue most aggressively for the notion that the constitution says what is says, and that the law is a matter of application much more than interpretation. If that is the case, then Elena Kagan's sexuality should make not one whit of difference."

Your not very good at making an argument. If Ms. Kagan agreed with the above then you would be correct but it does not take a rocket scientist to know she does not agreed to the above. Will her personal beliefs trump the law. On the GAY issue we know that it does. Look at the Soloman Amendment. She was so in favor of blocking the military and she did. However, the Supreme Court in A 9-0 ruling said it was fine. That tells you her thinking is way off.

The irony of 'Don't ask, don't tell' in this situation is just hilarious!

Sexuality is irrelevant within reason. Someone who is attracted to farm animals or small children could pose a bit of a dilemma in the confirmation process.

Gay, schmay: we saw her picture the other day in the WSJ, and the way she was holding that bat, I want her here in San Diego on the Padres. Who cares about the Supreme Court, a talented woman like her should do something useful for a living, like play left field... here.

Let me be a little sarcastic, people like her is need in China or India; problem with the population solve and no more babies kill.

We are still waiting for Rabbi Hirschfield to address the following passages found in his operating manual aka the Torah/OT, i.e. did these passages originate with the god Jehovah??????? Rabbi Wolpe would say no!!!! God bless this latter Rabbi!!!

"Genesis 19 Condemns all homosexual behavior. Condemns raping of strangers for the purpose of humiliation.

Leviticus 18:22 Condemns all homosexual behavior. Condemns gay ritual sex in a Pagan temple and/or males having sex in a woman's bed.

Leviticus 20:13 Condemns all homosexual behavior. Condemns gay ritual sex in a temple and/or males having sex in a woman's bed.

A conservative Republican politician who may wish to follow the law and exclude considerations such as someone's sexual orientation still has to deal with the public base of the Republican Party, which considers such issues critical. For a good segment of the population (almost all Republican), homosexuality is a sin which marks one as despised by Jesus. Appointing such a person to a high office may offend Him, and He will strike out to punish the country in his righteous anger. Pat Robertson was really big on this, and his followers believe it.

With so many people at this degraded level of mentality, it is difficult to deal with the real issues in any legal and rational way. Republicans have become very good at appeasing their base without actually admitting that they agree with their disreputable views. This is what we will see again in the upcoming hearings.

I fail to see how anyone's sexual orientation is germane regarding their job qualifications. As long as we're talking about consensual adults, who cares?

A far more interesting question is whether someone is capable of doing the job; if not, why not?

what is the percentage of gay people in the Republican Party?

I bet it is close to the national average.

it sure isn't zero.

Meant to say:

"Perhaps the Senator to ask Elena Kagan if she is a lesbiam should be the single ... "

Perhaps the Senator to ask Elena Kagan if she is a lesboam should the the single, bachelor-for-life, swishily effeminate Lindsay Graham. He can get up on the table, with a pink tuttu over his business suit, and do a little two-step, winding up with a delicate pirouette, and then ...

... pop the question ...

... and then ... all of North America ... no! ... all of the world ... from the Pope in his red shoes and crown, sitting on a thrown ... to the overly bearded and testosterone-soaked Islamic clergy in Mecca ... all of us shall for the answer ... is Elena Kagan a lesbian, or is she normal?

Couldn't any woman be a lesbian? Couldn't any man be gay? How would you ever really know?

Wasn't David Souter gay?

A lot of the people in the world may be gay; how would one ever know?

But what about Janet Reno? Was she gay?

What about Condoleezza Rice? Was she gay?

What about Lindsay Graham? Is he gay?

What about House Minority Leader John Boehner? Is he gay?

What about the Pope? Is he gay?

It can really get messy when false religious dogma bumps up against a call for simple equality and justice.

Now that gay people are reaching out to take their rights, and speaking up to ask for their rights, religious opposition becomes more and more awkward, more and more intrusive, more and more out-of-place in a modern world.

Regarding the issue of Ms. Kagan's sexuality...yawn...

Why are the conservatives the ones that disrespect the office of President. Barry? Very disparaging. I guess it is ok to use georgey porgey, or mock reagan for alzhimer? The differnce with Miers is she claimed because she was Bush's counsel she did not need to answer any questions. But conservatives still have yet to answer about Renquist? Skipping the problem does not make it go away. They are ignoring this like they ignored Bush running up the deficit. If you asked them eliminate the debt or outlaw abortion I wonder which one they would choose.

Wasn't it the bold one, little barry, who insisted that the WH and Harriet Miers be "more forthcoming" and insisted that Miers undergo intense scrutiny since she had no judicial experience?

My my, how things change.

Now his mirror image, separated from birth, appointee is asked questions and we are told to shut up.

November is going to be some kind of sweet.

Posted by: elh74
"Her sexuality IS RELEVANT. There is a likely Supreme Court challenge in the future about whether one state will have to recognize another state's same-sex marriage laws."
To me this is like saying that we could not have put Judge Thomas in during the 60s because there was likely to be a ruling on segregation and Thomas is black. Seriously? Because Kagen has a personal stake - and I am sure much more of a stake in the outcome than elh74 has on this issue - she doesn't get a say?

"Quite frankly, she looks like a lesbian."

Pray tell, what does a lesbian look like? Ellen DeGeneres? Rachel Maddow? Portia DeRossi? Chely Wright?

The Bible was written by Man, and Man as we all know changes thing's, Whom ever the man that wrote in the Bible that man should not lay with man, his man must have dumpded him or went to someone else, and he was mad at his lover, just a thought, you Now Know.

@MORDRUD wrote: "...That is if you are reasonable. But reason often gets trampled in debate...."

------------------------------

Reason got left at the start gate, and if you're trying to reason in a political dog fight you lost a long time ago.

Then again, you left reason out too. Your appeal to emotion, that Marshall and Warren were great Americans. Both might have been great politicians, and I mean great as in they were really good at it. Marshall was, if anything, a jurist with a very inventive mind. He created some really impressive if not factually wrong arguments that Scalia now follows as a dogma.

It's a good think we're writing about this in a religion blog, where one doesn't really expect reason, but takes things on faith.

Posted by: elh74
Her sexuality IS RELEVANT. There is a likely Supreme Court challenge in the future about whether one state will have to recognize another state's same-sex marriage laws.
She is rumored to have a female lover. Quite frankly, she looks like a lesbian. But if she herself and her friends are saying that she is not a lesbian, then I think that closes the matter.
*****************************
You are simply an ignorant fool.

Mordrud I am not asking to confirm Kagan just for you to condemn Renquist as at the time wholely unqualified for the court let alone the Chief Justice. The fallacy is for people who make mistakes to accept responsibility and ask for forgiveness. Not for others to learn from them.

I am waiting?

if she said Yes she is Gay, and was denided her right on the court because of this, is that not against the law, and could she not SUE the Goverbement for such a reason?

I didn't get to weigh in on Rehnquist when tricky Dicky put him in - I was only 1 years old. Nut I must point out that this appeal to use Rehnquist to justify Kagen is a logical fallacy. " ..But they did it too!"
tu quoque fallacy. You can't justify your a mistake being made now by saying the other side made the same mistake before. you are supposed to learn from it and not repeat mistakes. That is if you are reasonable. But reason often gets trampled in debate.

@ DGANDERSON13 wrote: Can anyone name the last justice not be a judge prior to the court. It was a right winger. Name Renquist. If it was ok for him to be Chief Justice why is not ok for Kagan to be on the court? This is not a valid reason unless you first condemn Renquist first.

-------------------------------------

Great point. I would also add that nobody asked about his sexual orientation.

And one reply to Marshall and Warren. Marshall of course could be considered one of the founding fathers of the country and had been in positions of authority as a congressman and as secretary of state. Warren was governer of California had a record of decisions and authority before moving on to the supreme court. Neither of the qualifications of these two great americans can honestly be compared with solicitor general. Not even close to the same league of experience.

Can anyone name the last justice not be a judge prior to the court. It was a right winger. Name Renquist. If it was ok for him to be Chief Justice why is not ok for Kagan to be on the court? This is not a valid reason unless you first condemn Renquist first.

@MORDRUD "...but the focus should remain on real issues and not how a person finds their sexual pleasure..."

---------------------------

Why do you think sexual preference and sexual pleasure go together. A bum lay is a bum lay anyway you look at it.

The primary focus of my argument is that conservatives not let themselves be dragged into an ugly red herring debate. They should focus on Kagen's qualifications if they want to engage in a legitimate debate. because she has no record to stand on there is going to have to be a more rigourous examination of her beliefs and ability to judge. She has never had to live with the weight of a judgment imposed on another human being and the awesome responsibility of that type of power. I am not saying that she is not qualified. I have NO idea whether or not she is - but the focus should remain on real issues and not how a person finds their sexual pleasure - so long as they are finding it within the bounds of legal activity.

@MORDRUD You caution against what you believe are Kagan's lack of qualifications. Based on that argument two prior US Chief Justices should not have been in the court because they weren't qualified: Earl Warren and John Marshall. Are you really sure the qualification line is the best one around?

------------------

I should have added Louis Brandeis as well. Republicans complained about him, viewing him as too liberal. He favored social justice (shock horror) and developed the concept of a right to privacy (double shock and horror). And, he hadn't been a judge either prior to his appointment.

"We are talking US law not man-made religious tripe."

US law, by contrast, is not man-made. Do I understand this rightly?

@MORDRUD You caution against what you believe are Kagan's lack of qualifications. Based on that argument two prior US Chief Justices should not have been in the court because they weren't qualified: Earl Warren and John Marshall. Are you really sure the qualification line is the best one around?

@ ANDREWPATEJR wrote: "Words change meaning over time, but in a natural progression."
------------

What would an unnatural change in word meaning be? Nice speech, Andrew Pate Jr, but it's utter nonsense.

I note that comment that Hannety raises Kagan's sexual identity only in the course of claiming it's irrelevant. Right. Hannety will achieve the dual purpose of placing the issue front and center on a daily basis, and buffing his own credentials as one who doesn't care. Gimme a break.

I am not with homosexuality and most likely more than a little bit homophobic, but this type of questioning is out of line.

It's nobody's business.

Conservatives: Beware this red herring issue being dragged out by the liberals to distract from real issues. They want to fight you here because the have the ethical high ground of equality on their side - but Kagen's sexuality is not the issue that should decide her qualifications. the key issue is one that liberals lose on - qualifications. Kagen has never been a judge. It really is as simple as that. She has NOT earned a spot on the supreme court. She has no record to stand on - to be judged by. In today's shortcut-oriented American Idol world there is the temptation to let people jump to the head of the line but in matters as serious as the supreme court due diligence in process must be respected. Leave her sexuality out of the discussion or suffer the distraction and loss of the debate.

Although I find questions about Ms Kagan's sexuality to be distasteful, those questions are being asked. Her response (or perhaps nonresponse) will certainly tell something interesting about her.

Every nominee must submit to batteries of intrusive questions. Some of those questions are bound to be distasteful or offensive either to the nominee, you, or to me. But part of being any sort of public figure is dealing with sundry petty intrusions into one's personal space. When that happens one is expected to respond with grace. That does not mean to respond by attacking those asking the distasteful/offensive/intrusive/unfair question.

Although perhaps distasteful, the question about Ms Kagan's sexuality is at least straight forward. She can respond likesise:

1 "Yes, I'm gay."
2 "No,I'm not gay."
3 "None of your business!"
or
4 She can ignore the question. Fairly or not, ignoring a question is perceived as rude, especially such a simple and straightforward one. That will reflect poorly on Ms Kagan.

She should just answer the question.

For the record, conservative blogger Ben Domenech started this ugly discussion before she was officially nominated and the White House's comments were off the record until other media sources blew it up.

This has been a persistent thing from the right since she was nominated to be solicitor general.

While it is so hard to do in general, I have to give Hannity some props for saying her sexual preference is not an issue. But he appears to be going it alone among his peerage.

I don't think Ms. Kagan's sexual orientation is anyone's business.

As long as she doesn't publicize it and then proceed to make an issue out of it, we should consider it a non-issue. It's manners.

Choose another topic, guys.

fr elh74:

>Her sexuality IS RELEVANT. There is a likely Supreme Court challenge in the future about whether one state will have to recognize another state's same-sex marriage laws.
She is rumored to have a female lover. Quite frankly, she looks like a lesbian. But if she herself and her friends are saying that she is not a lesbian, then I think that closes the matter.<

1. Her sexuality is NOT, repeat NOT relevant in this situation, except to close-minded little fundies and those who are rabidly anti-gay.

2. She has short hair. So what? THOUSANDS of woman have short hair, because it's just easier to care for.

3. Grow UP and mind your own business.

His cut-and paste, gay bashing, cherry-picked scriptures below are proof once again that homophobia is also one of ccnl1's (aka Yeal9) family values, too.

Posted by: areyousaying

Don't forget Spidermean2. He'll be along.

As for sexuality, don't people have enough to worry about with their own sex lives rather than chasing down the details of others' intimate lives? Shouldn't this discussion be about whether she can do the job, not who she may or may not be sleeping with, and when? Unless it involves me or my spouse, it's none of my business what two (or more!) consenting adults do in their bedroom. Or kitchen.

I think that's a much more interesting conversation.

Oh for pity's sake! Was anybody questioning David Souter, who was a lifelong bachelor about his sexuality? Only because she is a woman are they saying anything.

Who cares what Kagan's sexuality is? Only the right-wing nutters as can be seen by the rabid bible quotes here. These idiots still believe the world is flat.

GOP is the party of hypocrisy with it's simple-minded "family values" blab etc. I wish they'd stick to the point, but of course they never know what the point is since they spend so much time lying and covering up.

Methinks the ones that are screaming the loudest about "evil homosexuals" and the "gay agenda" are hiding from themselves. Kinda like that guy Reker, who hired a young studmuffin to check his package... er... carry his luggage in Europe. He was a founding member of the American Family Association.

SQUID1 - Well said. Good point. I don't think her sexuality makes a difference, but there's nothing inconsistent about conservatives raising this issue. I don't think they should, but it's not inconsistent.

I don't think that Kagan's sexuality should have anything to do with the confirmation process. However, in accusing conservatives of being hypocritical in their stance (i.e., one's background and sympathies should not be a consideration with regard to the merits of the case), the author is displaying a lapse in logic. There's a difference between normative and positive conservative judicial philosophy: judges should not allow their backgrounds and sympathies to dictate the outcome of cases before them, but some of them most assuredly do. In fact, this Administration has expressly stated that they subscribe to the view that judges should take into account the background of the litigants and societal concerns when deciding cases. It is therefore not hypocritical to ask Ms. Kagan what her background is when it is to be expected that her background will have a bearing on future cases.

to ELH74 " Her sexuality IS RELEVANT. There is a likely Supreme Court challenge in the future about whether one state will have to recognize another state's same-sex marriage laws."

In which case, the sexuality of all of the other Justices will ALSO disqualify them from ruling on this issue, since they are either hetero or, in Thomas' case, perverts, and hence biased. therefore, all questions of law about sexuality are off the table. Good. lets move on.

I guess the real standard is whether or not John Roberts supports pedophilia since he's a catholic. This discussion is absurd

It appears to me that the real debate being carried on in these comments centers on the persons political affiliation and/or religious beliefs. As for me, I want a Supreme Court Justice that is smart enough to read and understand the Constitution and will make sure all laws are Constitutional. If we had a true Supreme Court
there would be no 'liberal' or 'conservative'
Justice but just Justices who interpret the law and not make law.

LeePefley1 - Resorting to reductio ad absurdum to try to justify you intolerance is not only false but it is really, really lame.

First, the inferences you site are really stupid. I mean we are talking elementary school stuff. Even more, pedophilia and the other abominations you site, while not exclusively, are mostly deviations found among HETERO-sexuals, so your post is even more absurd.

Should we have demanded Roberts divulge his sexual history in fear of learning he lusts after canines?

By your absurdist standards, there is no line of questioning that is off limits.

"Every personal issue needs to be explored because some minute segment of the population perverts that issue so, Mr or Ms nominee, we need you to answer our inane questions...."

Isn't that part of the definition of a POLICE STATE?

To take ANY interest in another's sex life is absurd. I am not intersted in my plumber's sex life, nor, my auto mechanic's: my own sex life is MY focus, because I have one. That said, Hirshfeld is hypocritical, in the extreme. For a non-strict contructionist to (selectively) insist that his opposite stick to strict constructionist reasoning is at the root of Cindy Sheehan-type anarchy. You people aim to destroy the constitution, you wish to substitute your own, Sol Olyinski, version. The crodile tears over Kagan's private affairs are a smoke screen. If Kagan, as a public official, isn't smart enough to have expected questions regarding every aspect of her life, she wouldn't have been selected.

Who are they "conservative talk show hosts" that are spreading rumors about Kagan's sexuality? This entire debate is based on the assumptions that conservatives are the ones spreading rumors about Kagan's sexuality, but before diving headfirst into it, wouldn't it be good to know who these conservatives are?

The hypocrisy of the Republican and their sheep never ceases to amaze me. Aside from the belief of our founding fathers in the SEPARATION of church and state, they actually have the gall to critize others based on religious values. Limbaugh was a drug addict and only came forth when he got caught. Glen Beck is an alcoholic whose brain cells have been fried. Gingrich left his wife who was dying of cancer for another woman, etc. etc. etc. I guess morals and values only apply when it's convenient for the Republicans.

To agree with one of the previous posters, it was not Republicans who reported Kagan's sexual preference. It was the mainstream liberal media. Now they're aghast that it is an issue? What hypocrites!

When Kagan wears her supreme court robe, I only care that she bases judicial decisions on the law and not on her liberal views.

SEADUCK2001: what are you a complete ignoramus? Isn’t that why Christ died on the Cross, so the believer would not suffer the penalty of breaking God’s Law, which is death. Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written: Everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law is cursed. 11 Now it is clear that no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous will live by faith…13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written: Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed.

Regarding Kagan being a lesbian, does it really matter? Not really. Can she be any more liberal than John Paul Stevens? No. All it really represents is the victory of the homosexual and atheistic revolutions that have taken place in the America for the last 100 years. It demonstrates that we have almost completely replaced the original Christian order with the humanist order; the revolution is just about complete.

Umm, no, BB. No translation was needed...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005110065

From WaPo's Kurtz: "An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian....A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said he complained to CBS because the column "made false charges."

As the Huffington Post's Sam Stein reported "The White House reacted strongly to the assertion, relaying that Kagan is, in fact, straight."

"So, that's pretty unambiguous. As Solicitor General, Elena Kagan was then, as now, a senior Obama administration official, so the White House aides who explicitly said Kagan is not gay were presumably speaking with her sanction. Absent any convincing evidence to the contrary -- and no, rumors and rumors about rumors don't count as convincing evidence -- the unambiguous statements of White House officials should put the speculation to rest."

"Republicans. All they care about is abortion. They have no solutions for any of the real problems in this country: war, healthcare, immigration, the economy."
____________________________________________

You mean like puppy killer Soutomayor? Remember the animal cruelty video case a few weeks back? You know, when all the liberals voted to allow the videos and the only dissenter was conservative Alito?

Actually, it's the press and mainstream media that have made this an "issue". Creating news to avoid real stories.

"She's a sop to the left, inexperienced, biased, not representative of the country, and a social failure. Thumbs down, Barak!
Posted by: Jerusalimight | May 13, 2010 11:05 AM"

Boy, are you going to be disappointed, Jeru, when she's confirmed and goes on to have a stellar career on the Surpeme Court!

AS THE BIBLE SHOULD SAY...IF NOT TRUTHFUL TO ONESELF, TRUTHFUL TO WHAT.

Strange, this fascination about heaven, hell, and homosexuality. How are you different than the rabid followers of Islam?

Question Kagan's qualifications and experience, yes. But don't quote the bible in support of your position that she is not fit for the supreme court. The bible, to many of us, is irrelevant.

Kagan is the wrong choice on all accounts.

One, she has no experience on the bench. Why hire a brain surgeon who has never operated in their life??! Ridiculous!

Two she's out of touch with real life. Never formed a marital relationship, and never worked in the real world outside the ivory tower of theory and PC.

And, yes, three, she seems to be living with an avowed lesbian. And don't tell me she won't let it affect her judgement, because she already proved otherwise. She fought very hard to keep the US Department of Defense from recruiting at Harvard, solely because of their stand on homosexuality.

She's a sop to the left, inexperienced, biased, not representative of the country, and a social failure. Thumbs down, Barak!

Who are the conservative talk show hosts asking about Kagan's sexuality? I'm seriously interested and not asking the question because I don't believe what Hirschfield is saying. I don't listen to a lot of conservative talk shows, but the only person I've heard questioning her sexuality is Andrew Sullivan.

Yeal9 - You need to read Romans a little further:
Romans 2:1: "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." (NIV)

So there

Being gay shows lack of judgment and that's why it is a very important issue. Gay people have a perverted understanding of human nature and established their own anti-God standard.
As they're unable to judge for their personal lives between right and wrong, it is of course very questionable if they can interpret the law accordingly as they're generally unable to discern between right and wrong.

Jesus said, "Love one another." He didn't add "except homos."

I agree completely with this article. It doesn't matter one smithereen if Kagan is homosexual or not, neither does it matter what the Bible has to say on the subject, since USA is not a theocratic dictatorship.

"If I understand the liberal mindset, it matters not at all that this woman might be a closet pedophile, or craves to have sex with corpses, or copulates with horses."

"If I understand the liberal mindset..."

You don't.

Thanks for playing.

All the Bible verses listed have interpretations which would fail to condemn all homosexual behavior when translated in a non-interpretive way. Note several of the older verses are in chapters which also require death for mixed fabrics so using them is at least selective quoting.

see http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm for Leviticus 18:22

Check out http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm#menu for a menu of the discussions on these issues.
The main issue is whether or not the passages were referring to all homosexual behavior or a specific type which was banned because it was part of pagan worship, which also merited death for male-female pagan sexual worship.

Lost in the middle lost the translation. The White House pushed aggressively against reports of her sexuality as improper. No assertions have been made one way or the other. The standing of the question is at issue, not the answer.

BB

The White House and Ms Kagan have repeatedly asserted that she is heterosexual. I personally do not care if she is or is not. I do care if the truth is being manipulated. Is this woman gay? How can people who don't even know her continue to say she is when she herself has said she is not? Do you people think you know her better than she knows herself?

It's as irrelavent as Bush's drug habit or Gingrich's philandering.

Sorry, loewsing, I'm not a "religious nut" I'm agnostic. And I don't "pick and choose" from the bible. Why would I need to? It's either the word of God or it isn't. If some of it seems "out of date", what are we to think? Who is to choose what still has relevance?

Where has any "legal conservative[ ] and so-called strict constructionist[ ]" made an issue of Kagan's sexuality? The only people that have seemed uncomfortable with it was the Obama administration in their stringent denials that she was gay. It's a far bigger issue for liberals -- who claim sexuality should be of no moment -- to deny Kagan's so strenuously, implying that it really does matter. Perhaps religious zealots and hill folk really care about this, but to claim that legal conservatives do is to show a fundamental misunderstanding of that term, which is furthered by equating them with "strict constructionists" rather than originalists. I recommend you actually learn about things before you write about them.

Your bible is a work or fiction and has no use in secular law. "afraid she may vote infavor of the so called gay agenda" guess what people, there are many straight individuals who would also vote for gay rights. Just because one is straight doesn't mean they are a shoe in to vote with the right-wing religious fanatics. Equal rights is just that, equal rights, its not a gay thing, its not a black thing, its not a female thing...its a human thing.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 13, 2010 5:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If I understand the liberal mindset, it matters not at all that this woman might be a closet pedophile, or craves to have sex with corpses, or copulates with horses. Tolerance is wonderful, yes?
_____________________________

Please sir or madam, this is a scholarly discourse about a serious issue regarding our judicial system and not an opportunity for odd sexual inquiry.

And that includes speculation about Ms. Kagan's sexuality. Should this be the first question asked about a potential judge? I think not.

Brad means in fact Questioning those who are questioning.
He spends time discussing the improbable legal impact and avoids of course to enter -deeply or even superficially- the case history. All that we known takes one short line and that line has already been written elsewhere. Psys were not invited.

"However could her position on the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, which was an unpopular position"

An unpopular decision? Hardly - polls show most Americans are in favor of scrapping DADT and ending discrimination by the military. And regardless of whether it is an "unpopular position" or not - it is a position of principle backed up by the Third Circuit - it took a tyrannical government, bent on ignoring Court orders, to force the issue. I would think that Conservatives would support principled opposition to a tyrranical government.

MAXSWELL wrote "Odd that the writer quotes Leviticus for one of its rare statements of tolerance when the book is really one long list of defined crimes and associated punishments, most of which mainstream Americans would reject out of hand."

What MAXSEWELL and his religious nut buddies seem to forget that there's more to Leviticus and they pretend to ignore other rules. It's call picking and choosing which is what MAXSWELL doing. Read the rest of the bible MAXSWELL!!!!!
==========

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

Odd that the writer quotes Leviticus for one of its rare statements of tolerance when the book is really one long list of defined crimes and associated punishments, most of which mainstream Americans would reject out of hand.

Most of us don't care but if she is homosexual and wishes to keep this matter private, it raises the possibility that she could potentially be victim to blackmail by activist groups hoping to influence her decisions and writings which would impact more than 300 million Americans.

The problem here--for both liberals and conservatives--is not with the sexual orientation of the candidate. It is about perhaps the key expertise required for being a lawyer and a judge--the accurate usage of words. When a word is altered so as to completely change its meaning, something radical has taken place, an attempt has been made to alter human understanding. In legal judgments, every word--freedom, rights, male, female, human, whatever--demands interpretation and application with consistency. Words change meaning over time, but in a natural progression. Otherwise, the individual interprets a word as he or she wishes, not has it has historically evolved and ordinarily understood. If that is the accepted procedure, then why not, abandon entirely the usage of "homo", "hetero," "marriage," "male, and "female." If, however, accurate word usage is an important criterion for a justice, how a candidate or appointee understands sexuality is an issue!

I agree that Ms. Kagan's sexual orientation should not be a factor in her appointment to the Supreme Court. However could her position on the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, which was an unpopular position, come from her personal beliefs and values? We should be allowed to know this.

Our political culture accepts that minorities can scrutinize the commitment to fairness of others. Blacks, hispanics, women, gays and lesbians, asians, all these groups can challenge whites and males and heterosexuals who seek elected or appointed public office.

When the majority wants to scrutinize a minority then that's permissible too, usually. Whites and heterosexual males vote will vote for minorities -- Obama, Hillary Clinton, are just two of the most recent examples, but there are others. Jindal in Louisiana, Boxer and Feinstien in California, and numerous politicians in New England.

Of couse, scrutiny is not limited to elective office. We all know from the disclosure by the media of Robert Bork's favorite porn films in 1991 that the private lives of heterosexual male judicial nominees is not sacrosanct.

The problem is that most media organizations have a "no-outing" policy regarding gays and lesbians. The policy protects a few people from hate, where the public has no real interest, but it also harms the public where it does have a real interest. It also harms the media.

With the policy in place, we can never know who is straight for sure. That's a lot like real life, but, like real life, people also abuse the rules sometimes.

Americans do have a right to scrutinize the character of those who seek high office. Heterosexuals need to know if the gays and lesbians we promote are intent upon harming people who aren't like them. It's a fair question, one that is asked of all, but one that the media will not permit the people to debate today.

So who is Elena Kagan? Is she an activist who promotes the best in people and who practices non-violence like Martin Luther King? Or is she the secretive, power-abusing, self-hating, paranoid personality characterized by J. Edgar Hoover, who many believe was a closet homosexual? The people need to know.

Hirschfield's post is troll-bait, luring the homophobes & antisemites out of the woodwork. nice job.

blasmaic wrote: People accept that it's okay to know if minorities will harm others when they achieve power. That's why America celebrates great leaders who advocate non-violence, like Martin Luther King.

-------

Isn't it curious that we in the majority don't seem to care if we're electing or nominating a non-minority who might harm others. No, we only worry that those scary minorities have it out for us.

To people concerned about Kagan's orientation, it's ok not to question if a white male justice is homophobic and favors policies harmful to gay people - after all, if he gets power, he's not going to harm us in the majority, right? But let a minority (in Kagan's case, just a rumored minority) get close to power, and all the alarms go off.

"Are you or have you ever been a homosexual?" as a question for court nominees (or anyone) = disgusting.

This column is, itself, nothing but a subversive way of churning up a question about Kagan's sexuality which nobody else was asking. Sort of like "some of my best fiends are JEWS, JEWS, JEWS (wink, wink)." Pretty slimy stuff here.

If I understand the liberal mindset, it matters not at all that this woman might be a closet pedophile, or craves to have sex with corpses, or copulates with horses. Tolerance is wonderful, yes?

Given the number of "Conservatives" who have been caught with (literally) their pants down, engaging in adulterous conduct that at one point in law was a felony, yet were protected by other "conservatives," any questions on this should be refuted by Ms. Kagan by a response asking the opinion on Rudy Giuliani, Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, and any other politicians who actively cheated on their wives, breaking both canon law and the Ten Commandments, neither of which expressly call homosexuality a sin.

People concerned about Kagan or any other public official's sexuality need to take their noses out of people's privates and look upwards to their brains. I am tired of this unending fascination with what people are doing in the privacy of their bedrooms. It is how people act professionally and ethically that should be their focus.

One "wit" of difference? Oh please!

Her sexuality IS RELEVANT. There is a likely Supreme Court challenge in the future about whether one state will have to recognize another state's same-sex marriage laws.

She is rumored to have a female lover. Quite frankly, she looks like a lesbian. But if she herself and her friends are saying that she is not a lesbian, then I think that closes the matter.

Is Rabbi Hirschfield in a very underhanded way trying to defeat Ms. Kagan's nomination because she is violating Judaism's ban on homosexuality? After all his orthodox non-profits pay him $300,000/yr to defend the Jewish faith. (guidestar.org)

Kagan's sexuality should be her private business and not subject to discussion by the media or politicians. This is but another example of declining standards in cultural civility and responsible journalism in this country.

Straight or not doesn't matter to me as long as she does her job right. But limit the hand-wringing, please, if you're stepping into the spotlight, you can't complain because they look at everything. Don't like it? Stay outta the Supreme Court, or elected office, or the movies. Life's not fair, get used to it.

repugs you have disenfranchised women,blacks, browns and now gays.
if this well educated, accomplished woman is qualified for this position and i believe she is then, she should be confirmed.
there are the "straight"repugs that have been caught in airport men's room, public parks and prostitutes black books.lest we forget the ones caught with tatooed skanks and working girl waitresses.
conservatives be careful you might be labeled,hypocrite.

I'm sorry Rabbi. Your arguments are a little juvenile for me. There is no nuance or color -- people interested in Kagan's sexuality are either homophobes or hypocrites. Well...

Let me explain it this way. If I were Obama, and I wanted to ensure my court pick was a radical liberal and would stay a radical liberal, I would choose a lesbian university woman. Why? Because those womyn are wacked! She is going to be much more unlikely to turn her back on her radical ideology than a straight woman.

Now, are there guarantees that this will be true? No, there are no guarantees, but Obama is a smart man and a smart man plays the odds.

If I was a liberal, her lesbianism would come as a comfort to me. Why shouldn't I expect the opposite reaction from conservatives?

I try not to think about what any of the US Supreme Court justices do in bed. I hope they will always keep it private.

I do not see the need to have a parade and fireworks to celebrate the heterosexuality of some of our government officials. I hope their personal enjoyment is enough of a reward, without requiring the public to applaud it. I suspect that the presence of a supposed lesbian on the Supreme Court will not tempt them to sodomy. Marital infidelity seems to be where most of them stumble.

So Mr. Hirschfield you're arguing that there was really nothing wrong with the court when it consisted of 9 white protestant males and the move towards diversity was unnecessary. Their life experiences in no way informed their judicial philosopy. Liberals have long argued that ethnicity, religion and life experiences, e.g. sexual orientation, ought to be considered when choosing justices and other federal officials since those aspects inform one's philosophy and world view. Identity is philosophy. Now they want to argue that they don't matter. Go figure. Unfortunately, a by-product of diversity is a focus on identity politics. Not only is Kagan's sexual orientation relevant so is her ethnicity. On the one hand if she is gay, she gets diversity points for broadening the life experiences of the court. The fact that she is Jewish (Ginsburg and Breyer) and from New York (Ginsburg, Scalia) means she narrows the court's diversity. She could be rejected for this alone by some Democrats using their diveristy algebra.

Republicans can vote against her for the same reason OBAMA VOTED AGAINST ROBERTS AND ALITO: Judicial philosophy.

Her support of the military recruiting ban on Harvard's campus is clearly an example of how her orientation informs her world view. It is also indicative of how she will decide future cases.

She's outside the mainstream. Far more than Bork ever was. Republicans who vote for her will have to deal with the Tea Party. Senator Bennet found out how that can go.

I am a social conservative but I could care less with her sexual leaning as long as it is with two consenting adults and I do not have to hear about it. So even though Kagan does not seem to be in favor of Don't ask Don' tell, she should keep it to herself.
However, she is nominated for the Supreme Court and then this becomes an issue in how it will effect her decisions. Because of this fact, it should be revealed in hearings for the public and Congress to know. I do not approve of homosexual behavior and believe it is wrong but people do not answer to me. They will answer for their behavior to God. But who knows if she is or not.
I am more upset with her becoming a rubber stamp for Obama's radical agenda. Obama called her a bridge builder and if so she should go into arbitration. A Supreme Court justice must preserve and respect our Constitution.

'Why don't we have someone from Texas, Wyoming, Montana, etc. instead of another New York, Harvard Law intellectual.'
______________

Because candidates from those states would inevitably be conservative republicans, or they probably wouldn't be where they are.

Otherwise, it should be clear that a democratic president will nominate otherwise well qualified candidates that share a number of his political/personal values and that are from the same political party.

All in all, this candidate is probably not by any means the preferred pick of a good many liberals - Senate republicans know this very well, but are blustering in protest without a lot of conviction. At least that's my guess.

Kagan will probably be approved without a great deal of contentious ill will from republicans - she is someone they can live with....and conservatives still in the majority, for now.

As far as Kagan's sexual orientation goes, we already know that heterosexual males are behind most of the trouble in the world, so how harmful could lesbians be by comparison?? It begins to look like her brains are more important than her brawn....or her sexual preferences.

The author presumes that only conservatives believe Kagan's sexual orientation is something the public has a right to know about. I believe it's important to disclose because it's the only way for the media to remain credible with the publc. A lot of readers believe the details -- or at least the generalities -- of Kagan's sex life are important, and the absence of a debate on it makes it appear that the media is covering up for her (and many other gays and lesbians).

People accept that it's okay to know if minorities will harm others when they achieve power. That's why America celebrates great leaders who advocate non-violence, like Martin Luther King. That's why Barack's easy life and lightweight credentials don't harm him... who wants a black with the battle scars of Sharpton or Jesse Jackson in the White House? Who wants anyone in power where she or he cannot be challeged on the required commitment to fairness for all?

Would Mr. Hirschfield name names and give us the citations as to which conservatives said what, to whom, and when? For all we know these "three talk show hosts" run on-line chats in their basements that draw an audience you count on the fingers of two hands.

I read a lot of mainstream conservative material and haven't seen anyone raise her sexuality. I seem to recall some blogger doing it a few weeks ago, but I also seem to recall a few conservatives dumping on him for it.

Otherwise, Hirschfield ought to stop wasting our time with straw men.

Comrades: To the recent nominee to sit on the bench of the highest court in the land: is your psychological libidal orientation a 'don't ask, don't tell' moment?

The statement "the only corrective would be a court which reflects the big tent of American life, including a firm commitment to a court which always had a roughly equal number of women and men, a gay court-member, at least one self-professed atheist, and so on" is crock because the United States is filled with people unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. We don't want pedaphiles, violent criminals, tax evaders, advocates of treason, people with unsound judgement, the inexperienced in life, or people who will decide "wrong" on too many things.

The Senate's role of Advise and Consent is fulfilled by looking at WHAT a nominee is likely to do if confirmed. Likely judgements after she is confirmed is the basis for voting Yes or No on her. So if anything in her background would cause her to vote in a way a Senator considered seriously improper, the Senator should do his/her duty and vote "NO." No matter what other factors might be politically correct.

His cut-and paste, gay bashing, cherry-picked scriptures below are proof once again that homophobia is also one of ccnl1's (aka Yeal9) family values, too.

Proof once again that homophobia is a Huckabee family value.

I'm not concerned about her sexuality.
I'm concerned about the whole package.

Who is she representing or representative of? She is another NY female, Harvard Law, and only experienced because she has been solicitor general for a period of time.
With little written, with one notable written commentary revealing a socialist leaning, we have nothing to suggest that is she is either mainstream America or fair, unbiased, and faithful to the U.S. Constitution.

Why don't we have someone from Texas, Wyoming, Montana, etc. instead of another New York, Harvard Law intellectual.
How about someone who graduated from UCLA law school after attending Chapman University and born and raised in Wisconsin?

Don't like the direction we are going.

Nostalgia/JJ - you can run but you can't hide.

The homophobes are pouring out of the closet! No surprise though. They have a habit of confusing their reproductive parts with the organ that really counts - the brain.

The Rabbi makes an excellent point - Kagan has the brains for SCOTUS, and that's the end of the discussion, or ought to be.

And you never know - maybe Obama will nominate a really really smart heterosexual, liberal Protestant next time. I wonder, will that make the republicans any happier??

Why is this our business? And for all you righteous people quoting the Bible: "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Bottom line...Kagan's sexual orientation is no one's business but hers. I am more concerned with whether or not she will turn out to be another corporatist. The conservative agenda, to bankrupt this country and turn everything over to the corporations, should not be allowed to continue subverting the American democracy. Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are all corporate stooges.

"1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death. Once truly saved, homosexuals will become heterosexuals. Male child molesters and the children they molest will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death.*"

You don't see a problem with the victims of molestation going to hell because they were forced into sex?

And this is a loving God?

fr thorpegp2626:

>...Current law - Defintion of Marriage Act - defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Kagan - by her personal life - has chosen to disregard this definition. This is fine with me - as her personal choice - but I will never agree to give her the power as a justice to make her personal choice the Law of the Land....<

Being GLBT is NOT a "choice". You are BORN gay or straight. Being GLBT is also not against the law, as the fundies want it to be. It also doesn't have anything to do with her excellent background. Being GLBT doesn't have anything to do with my job, for instance, or my wife's. We've been in a rock-solid, Christ-centered marriage for almost two years now, in that too-short window before prop HATE was rammed down the voters' throats by the likes of "dr" jimmy dobdork and his evil gulag.

I suggest that YOU concern yourself with YOUR marriage, and quit poking your nose in others where it doesn't belong.

Oh, and by the way, look for the doofus "doma" to be struck down, just like the laws forbidding interracial marriage were. It'll happen, hopefully soon!

Oh, for heaven's sake, YEAL9, when will you and your ilk ever cease with those tired old Biblical quotes. The bible also says:

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

@thornegp2626 - "The Constitution gives individuals equal status. Marriage involves two people. When you get married you become a couple.
Current law - Defintion of Marriage Act - defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Kagan - by her personal life - has chosen to disregard this definition. This is fine with me - as her personal choice - but I will never agree to give her the power as a justice to make her personal choice the Law of the Land.
I think I am not alone!"

--

Fortunately, you do not have the power or ability to "give her the power as a justice."

Your argument about marriage is just silly. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman, except for where it isn't. There is not now, and never has been, a universal definition of marriage.

You folks that want to prevent same-sex couples from enjoying the same rights as citizens that you take for granted ought to find something else to worry about. Certainly same-sex marriage is no threat to you, to your community or to your country. And when same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, you will still be free to grumble and complain about it.

Mind your own business. Leave other people alone to engage in their own pursuit of happiness. A marriage between two consenting adults is simply none of your business unless you are one of the consenting adults.

Why not keep it simple? There have already been closeted homosexuals on the U.S. Supreme Court. The only difference if Ms. Kagan is lesbian is that she is more transparent. She has neither affirmed nor denied. Deeply closeted conservative Republicans turn up in the news so often, picking up men in park or airport restrooms for example, that the GOP should have learned to keep mum on the topic by now.

I think it's actually clear that what the GOP wants to do is justify obstructionism with homophobia, even if they have to spread the meme that Kagan's a closet lesbian, whatever she says.

Homophobes don't even care if the people they get homophobic even *are* gay. The effect's the same.

See below, where someone 'accuses' her of being in a gay marriage, which, since they claim is 'against the Bible' and 'to be defined as one man and one woman' ...would make her somehow illegitimate as a jurist because of someone else's religious belief.

It shows how irrational the homophobia is, too, but this way, if she rules such, they can claim she's biased because she's gay, even if she isn't. While of course denying that heterosexuals are ever biased, thus LBGT people are 'inferior,' and thus to be disenfranchised from our own government.

Tidy, isn't it? They don't care if it's true. They'll use it to hurt who they hate either way.

If unconventional sexual orientation bothers conservative Republicans, why have they not more adamantly called Dick Cheney to task for supporting his gay daughter and her gay marriage? Also how can they tolerate Mary and her partner bringing a child into the relationship? Is defending a family member more important than sticking by your moral stance; the Mafia would applaud that.

Why would a homosexual judge be any more or less influenced by their sexuality than the heterosexual judge...or is it just that heterosexual males are always thinking so much about sex they can't wrap their minds around the fact that not everyone thinks the was they do/...or is it the fact that hetero sexual males can't tolerate it when a woman,any woman,is not potentially available to them as a sexual object? I could care less if Kagan is gay...and if she is good for her. I don't think that would make her anymore or less qualified for the SC.
PS folks like Yeal9 are the ones that hire the "rent-a-boys"!

While I don't like to thump the Bible, it's hard not be reminded of Leviticus 24:22 - You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike. Without making any claims about the relative merits of Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice, it would be helpful if the debate about it could honor this ancient principle.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Constitution gives individuals equal status. Marriage involves two people. When you get married you become a couple.
Current law - Defintion of Marriage Act - defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Kagan - by her personal life - has chosen to disregard this definition. This is fine with me - as her personal choice - but I will never agree to give her the power as a justice to make her personal choice the Law of the Land.
I think I am not alone!

Nothing quite like having a sensible and sober article to flush the religious nutcases out of the woodwork, all of whom are secure in their sense of pious rectitude because "Gawd" don' tole 'em. Predictably, the anti-religious nutcases can't resist the temptation to join in the froggy chorus. Oh, my. In the preface to the 2nd edition of "Jane Eyre," Charlotte Bronte noted that "Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion." Amen. Makes more sense to me than all the previous postings.

Yeal9,

We are talking US law not man-made religious tripe.

Rabbi Hirschfield noted: "While I don't like to thump the Bible, it's hard not be reminded of Leviticus 24:22 - You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike."

Continuing the thumping:

"Genesis 19 Condemns all homosexual behavior. Condemns raping of strangers for the purpose of humiliation.

Leviticus 18:22 Condemns all homosexual behavior. Condemns gay ritual sex in a Pagan temple and/or males having sex in a woman's bed.

Leviticus 20:13 Condemns all homosexual behavior. Condemns gay ritual sex in a temple and/or males having sex in a woman's bed.

Romans 1:26-27 Condemns all homosexual behavior as unnatural. Describes a group of heterosexuals who, against their basic nature, engage in same-sex behavior during ritual orgies.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death. Once truly saved, homosexuals will become heterosexuals. Male child molesters and the children they molest will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death.*

1 Timothy 1:9-10 Condemns all homosexual behavior Refers to child molesters and the children they molest.

Jude 1:7 Sexually active homosexuals will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death. Humans who have sex with other species will go to Hell, not Heaven, at death.

www.religioustolerance.org