Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Well how do you know there isn't already a gay person in the Cabinet/Supreme Court/etc.?"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:29 PM
Original message
"Well how do you know there isn't already a gay person in the Cabinet/Supreme Court/etc.?"
What is the deal with this new DU argument? I'm fairly sure it isn't a genuine attempt at discussing the value of having a diverse group of people in government.

Is it teasing? Is it a weak attempt at heterosexual snark? A sarcastic faux rejection of heterosexual privilege?

It irritates the hell out of me that any suggestion that President Obama should think about appointing a GLBT American to an important office is now repeatedly met by this quip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Chovexani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. I heard Ruth Bader Ginsberg throws a mean softball
Edited on Sat May-02-09 08:31 PM by Chovexani
Just sayin'.

(And, no, I don't get it either. I think it's way past time to get my homophobia bingo card out)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. apparently they think closet cases are the bomb
Edited on Sat May-02-09 08:39 PM by ruggerson
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. They may not be the bomb, but they may well outnumber gay people
who are willing to be out in every sphere of their lives -- and even out to the media.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. A rich Catholic gay white man would make some people happy I suppose
but personally I'd rather see an agnostic woman of moderate means and a skin tone other than porcelain and a sexual orientation that's nobody's business but her own (and in my ideal world, nobody would give a flying fart in the rain). And also she would have Barbara Jordan's comprehension of the Constitution.

I know that looking at the current array of justices, a Martian would never guess that more than half of the U.S. citizens are female, or that less than half are Roman Catholic.

I don't think it's snark or sarcasm or teasing to point out that many gay people may be in high office already -- We just easily recognize those who are black or female but not necessarily those who are gay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Who are these gay people in high office you're talking about?
Names, please. Pretending like they might exist just because you don't think you can tell someone's sexual orientation on sight doesn't mean that there is any great chance that there are gay people serving in high office. Or is pretending good enough if it means straight people can feel that they aren't really discriminating against LGBT Americans.

I don't really care who gets the nomination as long as he or she is a qualified person who will uphold the constitution the way it should be. I do think, however, that having a Supreme Court that truly represents the people is hundreds of years overdue in this country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. We agree completely on the sentiment in your second paragraph.
Note I said "may" -- I am not "pretending" they exist -- I am assuming we have gay people in high office and you are assuming we don't. So we can't agree there. I do agree we need to have openly gay people appointed/elected to high office, and I'm sure that day is coming. (but I live in Iowa, and have reason to be optimistic about such things... :))

A name to consider -- John Roberts. If I had to bet money. And then there's Barney Frank, who's hardly a failure in the vote-getting department.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. John Roberts has been married to a woman for thirteen years.
As I'm sure you know. Now opposite marriage isn't the best indicator of a person's sexual orientation, but I'll consider it as strong a proclamation as any.

And Barney Frank certainly isn't a closeted secret gay appointee.

You're far more optimistic than me about when we'll see an openly gay American appointed to a cabinet post. I really hoped we would see it with President Obama, but now I feel it will probably be 2017 or later before it happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. You're kidding, right? My father was married to a woman for 27 years,
Edited on Sun May-03-09 01:02 AM by pnwmom
but it never turned him straight. Neither did having several children with her. (And he viewed himself as gay, by the way, not as bisexual.)

And there are many many people like him still out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. Opposite marriage doesn't make someone straight, but what other proof do you have?
Speculating that Justice Roberts might be gay only feeds into this idea that President Obama doesn't have to think about appointing gay people to high offices because there are already closeted gays there.

Your speculation is a perfect example of what I'm talking about in this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. President Obama can't legally question people about their sexuality
and there are many gay people who still choose not to be out publicly. For all the professional, high level gay people who aren't public about their sexuality, what is Obama supposed to do? Have the FBI conduct an investigation? If he discovers that someone is gay, ask him or her if they would take the job on condition that they be outed?

As to your other point, there are many married gay people out there, especially in the age groups that would be considered for high level jobs. The idea that marriage constitutes "proof" that someone is straight is pretty unrealistic.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. The idea that marriage is not proof of being openly straight is also unrealistic.
Do we now automatically assume that every married person over 50 is a closet case? Or even a significant minority of married people over 50?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. I do assume that a significant minority of gay people over 50 are married
to straight people, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Do you assume that a significant minority of married people over 50 are gay?
Because that is the real question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. Yes, I do. After my father came out, I learned there were many others
like him. You clearly would be surprised at the number of 30 yr marriages that finally break up because one of the partners is gay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #41
128. Sounds like a personal issue and some unresolved feelings.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #128
130. I'm a part of a group of adult children of gays and lesbians.
Edited on Sun May-03-09 12:10 PM by pnwmom
That's how I know there are millions like me out there. With millions of parents who aren't fully out and may never be.

The good news is that the younger children are growing up in a different world -- but even now, in much of the country (particularly the red states and the rural areas), being openly gay is still not the norm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #130
138. The point is to have openly gay leadership in public life.
That's why how many closeted gyas there are, or aren't, isn't the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. And the question is, how do you get there?
Given that Obama can't force people to out themselves to the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #140
166. There is an open lesbian on several lists right now.

>>Stanford Law School professor Kathleen Sullivan, widely considered one of Americas top constitutional scholars, is being mentioned as a possible replacement for Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who has announced he will retire at the end of the courts current term.

Sullivans name appears on lists compiled by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and numerous law blogs. She is the founder and director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, and served as dean of Stanford Law School from 1999 to 2004.<<

http://www.gaypolitics.com/2009/05/01/out-lesbian-a-con ... /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #166
184. Good. I hope she's strongly considered. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #130
160. That sounds like groups for adult children of alcoholics.
Do you view being gay as a bad thing? Being an adult child of an alcoholic is universally seen as a bad thing - the groups are for recovery. Do you think that you have been damaged because your father is gay?

If so, it probably means that you view being gay as a bad thing, which would definitely bias your feelings about gay people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #160
183. Does PFLAG sound like a group for adult children of alcoholics?
Edited on Sun May-03-09 07:11 PM by pnwmom
COLAGE is an off-shoot of PFLAG. The founders of the group believed that just as gay people benefit from a sense of community, so do their children.

www.colage.org

PEOPLE AND PLACE
COLAGE was created for people just like you! In the United States alone, more than 10 million people have one or more lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/or queer parent(s). Today, COLAGE is the only national organization in the world specifically supporting children, youth and adults with LGBTQ parent(s). Using our experiences and creativity, COLAGE offers a diverse array of community building opportunities, education, leadership development and advocacy by and for folks with LGBTQ parents.

COLAGE COMMUNITY
Whether you already know lots of other people with LGBTQ parent(s), or always thought you were the only one, COLAGE is a source of friendship and understanding. It is a place where you can talk about your family with complete honesty and pride. COLAGE is an organization that accepts your family AND celebrates it! Welcome - You've Got a Friend in COLAGE!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #128
132. Diagnose ME!!! Diagnose ME!!!!
Edited on Sun May-03-09 12:15 PM by Sal Minella
Dr. Frist's line was busy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #132
136. Let's not let gays talk about being openly gay in public life. Right?
That should not matter, right? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #136
146. You are so far off-track I don't know where to start with you.
I have no idea what I wrote that misled you thus.

I believe a public figure should be out if he/she wants to be out, and not out if he/she is not yet ready to be out, for whatever reason.

How in hell you can misunderstand that, I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #146
162.  We need openly gay activists in public life to help change laws
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

>>Sal Minella (1000+ posts) Sun May-03-09 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
3. A rich Catholic gay white man would make some people happy I suppose
but personally I'd rather see an agnostic woman of moderate means and a skin tone other than porcelain and a sexual orientation that's nobody's business but her own...

I don't think it's snark or sarcasm or teasing to point out that many gay people may be in high office already -- We just easily recognize those who are black or female but not necessarily those who are gay. <<

The topic has been to support openly gay people who can fight for justice. It doesn't matter if Souter or Roberts are closet cases, or whatever distraction people want to float, they are not openly gay activists.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
esquire415 Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
22. I have a sneaking suspicion
Edited on Sun May-03-09 09:19 AM by esquire415
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
82. Hey, esquire415!
Welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Sexual orientation would be "nobody's business" but the attributes important to you
would?

Seriously, a 53 year old single woman is not note worthy in our culture and no one would guess, wonder or suspect?

And, she should remain in the closet? :rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
44. Why should anyone "guess, wonder, or suspect" about any successful
professional public person, married or single, male or female, gay or straight or unknown???

There's a little of the National Inquirer-type curiosity in everyone, but I've noticed there's very little in people who have satisfying lives of their own.

I know a thirty-year old woman who has been celibate for two years because she hasn't yet run across a man she wants to share her life with (and yes she has had sexual relationships with men in the past). She is a great success at her job and enjoys it and puts a lot of energy into it, and trying to establish a dating life at is more hassle than she wants to deal with right now. Should we "guess, wonder, or suspect" about her?

I think women have a much easier time tamping down their sexual nature -- and unfortunately, professional success for a woman in our culture may demand it. (i.e. "family leave" is a bad joke if it costs you your job)

How often is a male candidate, during confirmation hearings, quizzed about the status of withholding taxes on the wages of the nanny tending his children? iow, it's impossible for me to believe that all women choosing to remain single and childless are closeting their sexuality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #44
58. Why should anyone hide their life? Str8 people discuss their families
and every political candidate has family photo-ops by the dozen.

It's not that people should hide their sexual orientation, in fact str8 people do not hide theirs.

Why should gays?

The main question is, if they are open, why should it matter any more than it does when str8 people talk about their family lives? It should not matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Federal judges aren't political candidates and they don't
have family photo-ops by the dozen.

So how is anyone to know who is straight and who is gay? Except by asking, which is illegal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #59
67. During Congressional confirmations the wives of Roberts and Allito were front and center.
Gay people should have the same right to be open about their family life.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #67
71. I totally agree. Who's stopping them? Not Obama. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #71
78. This was a reply to #3. Sexual orientation for str8 people is a matter of pride
why shouldn't gays be proud too?

Why assume a position now, suddenly, that it's nobody's business when it comes to gays?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #78
86. It isn't legal to question someone about their sexuality -- but there is nothing
illegal in a person choosing to mention that they are gay, or have a partner. I think it would be great if anyone did that in the vetting process. But Obama can't be the one opening up the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #86
90. Job interviews obtain information directly and indirectly. You know that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vanje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #67
176. Ack! In your face heterosexuality!
The straights are extremely OUT in that public display of heterosexuality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #67
204. Sen. Larry Craig's wife (Suzanne) of 25 years stood beside him as he
denied to the press that he'd attempted to solicit gay sex in a public restroom. (Photos at Google images "Suzanne Craig.")

Gov. Jim McGreevey's wife (Dina) stood by his side as he resigned the governorship in New Jersey in 2004.

I'm still putting my money on John Roberts -- and unfortunately I expect him to be virulently anti-gay-rights as a justice, just like I expect him to be virulently anti-women's-rights (both of his children are adopted so he's on the "every-little-sperm-is-sacred" train).

If John Roberts is a closeted gay person then (1) I'm sorry he's felt compelled to remain closeted and (2) I hope the truth comes out (no pun intended) sometime during his term. Age-wise, he's somewhat on the cusp of the transition between the new generation's "gay is another normal" and the older generation's "homosexuality is a mental illness."

If Roberts is gay, I wish he'd come out publicly ASAP -- for the sake of the health of our society as a whole.

I'm hoping the Law School dean (was it Stanford?) is at the top of the list -- I would dearly love to see her on SCOTUS. And you and I would both be happy, right???

peace --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntravenousDemilo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #204
208. If Roberts is gay, then at the first sign of being virulently anti-gay, he should be outed.
And I mean immediately and noisily. Hypocrites deserve no consideration, and they do not belong on the highest court in the land. But as long as he behaves himself, he may remain in whatever closet he chooses to inhabit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #44
194. In an idyllic world, that might work.
In the real world, people are nosy, meddlesome busybodies on average.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
51. She shouldn't be questioned about her sexuality by a potential employer. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #51
60. Are there pictures of Roberts and Allito with their SO's? Why shouldn't gays be able to be open?
In the course of job interviews many things come out, directly or indirectly.

Gays should not fear being open and yes it does matter that we can live openly.

It should not matter as far as getting the job.

In an ideal world. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. OF COURSE they should be able to be open. The question is, are they open?
And are they willing to be publicly outed, if they haven't already?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #62
72. The question was: sexual orientation is no body's business, how naive.
Edited on Sun May-03-09 11:08 AM by bluedawg12
"...but personally I'd rather see an agnostic woman of moderate means and a skin tone other than porcelain and a sexual orientation that's nobody's business but her own (and in my ideal world, nobody would give a flying fart in the rain). And also she would have Barbara Jordan's comprehension of the Constitution." sal minella.


Being an agnostic is a nobody's business.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #72
97. The difference being, religious affiliation is frequently given in biographical material.
Sexual affiliation, not so much.

Our society (now) tolerates a wide variety of religious beliefs -- variety in sexual matters, not so much. (Unless one is a Republican of course, in which case no behavioral standards of any kind apply.)

Scratch the "agnostic" and put in "non-Catholic" -- okay? (I think five Roman Catholics out of nine people is already more than a genteel sufficiency.) (Come to think of it, demographics-wise, it would make more sense if the court had five women and one Roman Catholic.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #97
104. I agree that Roman Catholics are over-represented, but not quite to that degree.
R.C.'s comprise at least a fourth of the population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #104
116. I stand corrected. Should have looked that up, but didn't.
So to be representational, we would need to have 2.25 Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court.

And we have more than twice that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #116
129. Yup, and I seriously think
Opus Dei is behind that.

As a liberal Catholic, it makes me sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #129
141. Edit: Pls pardon deleted snark.
Edited on Sun May-03-09 12:44 PM by Sal Minella
This remains:

I saw a photo of Pope John XXIII the other day and nearly burst into tears, remembering how humane and warm-hearted and gracious he was. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #97
105. It is illegal to ask about religion in a job interview. You prove my point
Edited on Sun May-03-09 11:40 AM by bluedawg12
the bio contains lot's of hints about who the person is and what they want an employer to know.

Among them: "I am married, my wife Laura was a librarian, and I have two daughters." Bingo!

That's how it works.

If something like that is missing it will be asked indirectly. Might as well be open about your family life.

Instead of pretending it's "nobody's business but her own," as you suggested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #97
112. Sexual "affiliation" is almost always mentioned in official biographies.
Including the official biographies of all of the sitting Supreme Court Justices except Souter who isn't married.

The official biography pdf from the Supreme Court website.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #112
126. Sexual orientation is revealed in public life the minute a str8 person discusses their "family."
Gay people have families too. Not sure why suddenly some think it's better to sweep that under the carpet, unless it embarrasses some. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigo32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #126
202. I don't think it's better at all to sweep it under the carpet
I'm quite open. But it's pretty unrealistic to expect all GLBT to be the same way. They just aren't and I'm not going to hurt them any worse by forcing it on them. Yes... those of us who have the strength need to step forward. But lets not pretend its without consequence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #112
147. Oh dear. As though being opposite-married is a sure-fire indicator of gay or not-gay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. Is everyone now gay? I guess marriage equality really did destroy opposite marriage.
Or do you need visual evidence of heterosexual intercourse to believe that someone who is openly straight actually is, in fact, a heterosexual?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #147
167. Back on track: We need openly gay public servants to work for gay rights and justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuiderelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #62
158. How many straight people do you know of who've been "outed" as married?
(As some sort of negative thing.) I have never seen a straight person try to hide the fact that they are married. In fact, I don't know a single one who doesn't talk about their spouses and family on a regular basis. Their family is who they are. We're pressured to lie about ourselves (even by just saying nothing), in ways straight people cannot easily imagine.

We need representation just as every other minority. We don't need some imaginary closeted gay person representing us, who actually works against our interests, we need someone who is courageous and out and proud.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #158
205. Why do you assume that a 50- 60 year old gay person who grew up
when it was a criminal offense in many areas to be gay, and then a mental illness, and even today isn't comfortable being a gay media figure, would work against LGBT interests? A person appointed by Obama, who is not a right winger?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #158
209. I have "outed" several myself
They tend not to mention their wives to their girlfriends, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #62
168. NO that is Not the question and you keep doing exactly what the OP complains about.
>>"It irritates the hell out of me that any suggestion that President Obama should think about appointing a GLBT American to an important office is now repeatedly met by this quip.

Well how do you know there isn't already a gay person in the Cabinet/Supreme Court/etc.?" hulkhogan<<

You are turning this into a discussion about: "And are they willing to be publicly outed, if they haven't already?" That's wrong.


The issue is: we need more openly gay activists in public service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vanje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #51
177. Should she be questioned about her family? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeep789 Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. I don't want to limit the appointment to any group of people
I just want the best person for the job. I hope Obama doesn't limit his choices by focusing on any particular group.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'm starting to think that when people say they don't want to limit the appointment to one group
Edited on Sat May-02-09 10:50 PM by hulklogan
They really mean they don't want to limit the appointment to a group they don't think deserves it. And that goes for both sides of this discussion.

Why not give special consideration to members a number of various groups who, as yet in the 230+ year history of this country, have not been a part of the United States Supreme Court? That doesn't mean the eventual nominee will come from any of those groups, but it may take a bit of extra work on the White House's part to identify qualified candidates from those groups.

(edited to fix grammar)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. Women are over half of the population and yet only one of nine justices
is female.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. Exactly.
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeep789 Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. Can't keep you from thinking but in this case
you are dead wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
10. I'm not sure why they think a closet case would count.
Let's say there were somebody on the Supreme Court who were so deep in the closet that nobody in Congress caught wind of it, and they got confirmed. Is that person going to vote in favor of equal rights, or is that person going to put up a front as a raging 'phobe so that nobody even thinks of the real truth?

Considering what we know of powerful closet cases who were eventually outed, the latter seems way more likely than the former.

PS But if Roberts or Scalia ever gets caught with some 19 year old rent boy in a cheap motel, I'll laugh so hard I'll piss myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vanje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
178. I would expect a supreme court closet case......
would do as much for equal rights as Senator Larry Craig did.
(For those lacking clues, Sen Craig did NOT advance the cause of gay rights)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #10
195. Why would anyone want a dishonest person on the SCOTUS?
What you are saying is a very likely scenario. That's the last thing we need; a dishonest Supreme Court Justice.

It still boils down to honesty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
11. It's not necessarily a quip or snark.
Edited on Sun May-03-09 12:56 AM by pnwmom
The gay people who are out professionally and in every other sphere in their life, who are even willing to be out to the media even, are -- in my humble opinion -- still a minority of gay people in general. My father, for example, in the last twenty years of his life gradually came out in his New York area community and in business (and lost a lot of business along the way) but he was never out when he visited my sister's family in Texas or his brother in the midwest.

If the goal is to have gay people represented in the Cabinet or Supreme Court, then it is very possible that we already have gay people in such positions who are not out to the media. If the goal is to have fully OUT gay people in those positions, people who are willing to have their sex lives be the subject of media attention, then we have a much smaller pool of potential appointees.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
15. It is a "Shut up for once,and stop being a wedge. You are here on sufferance as it is." n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. What fraction of gay people do you think
Edited on Sun May-03-09 02:05 AM by pnwmom
are fully out to all persons in every sphere of their lives -- and wouldn't mind being out in the media as well? Once we subtract all those people from consideration (the ones who don't want to be fully out), aren't we down to a very small pool of potential appointees?

Unfortunately, by definition it's impossible to count gay people who are unwilling to be counted as gay. But I think it's quite likely that there are already gay people among the offices mentioned in the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Who are these closeted gay Justices?
Why can't anyone name them and provide proof about why they might be gay other than "they are in an opposite marriage and we all know what that means when they're republicans."?

Stevens has been opposite married twice.
Scalia has been opposite married for almost 50 years and has nine children.
Kennedy is opposite married.
Thomas has been opposite married twice.
Ginsburg is opposite married.
Breyer is opposite married.
Alito is opposite married.
Roberts is opposite married.

Souter hasn't been married, but apparently that is now irrefutable proof that he is straight.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
esquire415 Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Antonin Scalia?
He's probably a self-hating raging homosexual for all we know trying to suppress it by hiding it under his Catholic beliefs and producing 9 children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #23
47. At last, an explanation for Fat Tony's purulent unpleasantness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #47
68. He's been married for 40+ years and has nine kids, he's probably a heterosexual.
Sorry, straight people, Scalia's one of yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #68
77. How's come you gets to use "probably" when talking, and we haz to give "Proof?"
You've got a case of raging double standard going there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #77
87. What other kind of proof is there of someone's heterosexuality?
Because from what I can tell, a 40+ year marriage, photographs, nine children and public statements are not good enough proof for some of you.

Can you provide equal "proof" for all these alleged closet cases in the federal judiciary? I didn't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. Based on my experience, almost anyone.
Edited on Sun May-03-09 09:27 AM by pnwmom
There are no special identifiers, if the person chooses privacy, and it isn't legal to ask them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. So we just shut up and trust that there are closet cases on the Supreme Court?
That doesn't work for me, sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Who are the publicly out federal justices? Or governors? Or other people
at high enough levels to be considered for these positions? Can you name them?

There aren't many Barney Franks out there.

Maybe gay people should be encouraging each other to be more out, rather than pushing Obama to ask questions about sexuality that he's legally barred from asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. Beleive me, gay people are encouraging each other to be more out at every opportunity.
There aren't publicly out federal justices or governors or other people at high levels because, for some reason, America has decided that they don't deserve to be appointed/elected to those positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #36
42. Or maybe because high level professionals are choosing not to make their sexuality
the subject of media attention.

If they don't, how is Obama supposed to find out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. I hope you understand the frustration of LGBT Americans on this topic.
We are constantly told that an openly gay person can't possibly be elected to a high level position in government, then when we suggest that LGBT people be considered for appointed positions the argument is that there aren't enough of us who are qualified because there aren't any high level gay elected officials. And to suggest that there are already closeted gay appointees is just an attempt to quiet this frustration without addressing the real issue, which is the lack of LGBT representation in government. Closet cases do not represent the LGBT community, just as a visible minority who can pass and lives as a white person doesn't represent a visible minority community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #45
49. I can see why you're frustrated, but I don't see a legal solution
other than for the gay community to promote the appointments of specific gay people who are willing to be out to the media.

Especially in this age and professional group, between married "closet cases" and Barney Frank there is a vast middle ground of people who don't choose to have their sexuality be the subject of media attention. And Obama is barred from asking them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #49
52. We promoted a number of openly gay people for cabinet appointments
and it started a huge flame war even here on DU. And it also resulted in yet another entirely openly heterosexual cabinet.

The Mr. Nice Gay approach doesn't work. We've tried it for years. It seems like the only thing that makes positive change is to be the squeaky wheel in the Democratic big tent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. I'd like to know those names. I didn't see a thread like that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #55
189. there were several
quite a few authored by me. Search using my name and you can find them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #189
206. Thank you, dsc, I will. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #42
80. But high level str8 professional make their family life very public.
And it is the subject of media attention. Gays should expect the same level of interest, except, when we come out, we should also be treated the same as str8's, and family life admired and supported not judged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #80
93. I agree. But gay people still don't always come out, especially in that age group.n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #93
99. An FBI check, will make sure anyone is out, for a top Federal job.
After all gays aren't even allowed in the military openly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #99
106. No, it won't.
It will out the person to Obama, but it will not ensure that the gay person is willing to be outed to the whole world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #106
110. That information would go to Congress for Congressional approval hearings. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #110
111. That still doesn't mean that the person will be outed if he or she chooses
not to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #111
121. No one ever told Alito and Roberts not to talk about their families, that's my point.
Why should prospective openly gay SCOTUS candidates be encouraged to be silent, under the false concern:"it's nobody's business but her own?"

As asked above by an OP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #121
150. What makes you think Obama would ask anyone to keep their being gay a secret?
I don't think he would, and I'd be disappointed in him if I thought he had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #150
163. An openly gay woman is on several lists for SCOTUS.
We shall find out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #163
181. If she isn't chosen, will it automatically be because there was discrimination,
or could it possibly be that for other reasons she wasn't the best qualified?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #181
185. Perhaps you should wait and see what the reaction is to whomever is chosen
before you preemptively suggest that the GLBT forum will accuse the President of discrimination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #181
196. I caught bits of an interview with Pres. Obama the other night that was hopeful
he was asked about interpreting the Constitution and asked about strict constructionism and the right to privacy and did he think that interpreting that had any impact on marriage equality and he said "Yes!"

In another words the President does see that there are times when the Constitution has to be interpreted in modern times for modern needs.

I'll wait and see what the decision is and why when this important nomination is made public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #181
197. Not "if" ,but "when"
Yes, I am certain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
17. It seems highly unlikely that Brandeis ( 1916) was the first Jew
... appointed to the SCOTUS , though that's what the history books say. Depends on how one wants to define "Jew".

As far as most American Jews are concerned ( as well as anyone who thinks excluding entire demographic groups from consideration is a DUMB and a WRONG idea) Brandeis was the first Jew... even if there were others of Jewsish ancestry and/or parentage who preceded him to the court; that is, of Jewish ancestry but praticed ...say, Unitarianism.

In other words, if someone is "in the closet" , it doesn't and SHOULDN'T count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #17
27. If we only "count" publicly out gay people, then we are down to a very
small percentage of the general population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
25. it's a mildly homophobic trump card --
there are people who are successful in their careers -- in law, in politcs, etc -- who feel like they can not come out.

some liberals in an attempt to keep the lgbtiq community from being a target for social conservatives say certain things to get us to shut up.

the addendum to that is 'it will happen -- we're going to get there'. what ever that means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. How is it homophobic to point out that President Obama
can't legally inquire about people's sexuality? And many gay people at that level and in that age group aren't out professionally, much less to the media?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. The anti-gay part is the idea that Obama shouldn't consider openly gay appointees
because there *might* already be closet cases in those positions, even though all of the available evidence suggests that isn't true.

If there are already gay appointees, then the suggestion is that there is no need to find more. So even pointing out that there might be closeted gay people serving in those positions is meant to devalue the suggestion that there need to be more LGBT Americans in appointed positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. and that's what i mean by homophobic -- no, on the richter scale of
anti-gay rhetoric it doesn't reach a 'pat robertson 10' --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #33
39. Who says that Obama shouldn't consider openly gay appointees?
I'm just wondering how Obama is supposed to find them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #39
76. Gee, he could start by asking around at
GLBT legal organizations, or to those who are cheif council to large national and international GLBT organizations, such as HRC. I have seen several appointments in my lifetime, and those of us outside the legal world have rarely even heard of the nominee until they are nominated. Not one well known person has been named in my lifetime. No Govs. No well known jurists or lawyers. No famous political figures at all. When the nominatios are announced, the fist question is always who the hell is that? So this routine of asking for a list is a bit much. I could not make a list of qualified nominees drawing from the entire pool, who knows that pool so well? Do you?

And the whole argument is off a bit, because you know you can not advertize for a Latino but there are calls for a Latino appointment. You can not question people to find out if they are Latino, you can not hire them for being Latino or reject them for being Latino. But is seems fine to discuss that such a choice would be muy excellente. I'd like a gay Latina, with a literary bent. But that's just me. And I do not have to be able to name a bunch of them to say 'what a great thing that would be'. And if I was assuming that there are not any...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #76
98. How do you know Obama's people aren't doing that?
I assume that there are well qualified gay people out there -- but I'm not assuming that there's an excellent candidate in this age group who will want to be publicly outed and the subject of media attention for his or her sexuality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #98
161. I'm not assumeing he's not doing that
You asked how he could possibly find one, and I told you how he could. I assume he knows how. I'm assuming there would be dozens of qualified people. Based on what? nothing. Like your assumption.
Again, I'd point out that SCOTUS picks in my lifetime have never once been a person that was known by the general population until the nomination. So the whole dicussion is silly. How would anyone outside those circles really know the talent pool at all? I don't. You don't either. So it is unreasonable to ask for this list you demand. I could not name three women either, does that mean there are none?
And I'd really like to know why answering the question you asked promted you to declare that I assume Obama is not doing what I said he could do. You asked the question, not the President. You were wondering where you'd even begin to look for such an anomoly as a gay attorney or judge, and I told you. You asked. I answered. No where did I say anything about what I think Obama is doing or not doing. Why would you play that kind of a rhetorical game, I mean, why? To what end?
Ask a question than snap when you get an answer. But why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #33
94. The reason to hope for "gay" appointees in public/political life are numerous.
Having openly gay people in public life sends a message and creates a role model.

All of those ideas that allege that there are already gays miss the political point of having openly gays in public life and the impact they might have on policy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #94
115. I can hope for them without thinking that many who haven't outed themselves
so far will want to do so now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. how is it so hard for you to consider that
someone who is out and qualified should be considered?

we are an underrepresented community -- in spite of your personal assertions that some how closeted people represent us - after all roy cohn was a closted person in our community -- and how well did that work out?

herbert hoover was a closted gay person and how well did that work out -- ESPECIALLY for other closeted gay people?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. OF COURSE out gay people should be considered. I'm sure Obama will.
Edited on Sun May-03-09 10:15 AM by pnwmom
But who, apart from Barney Frank, are they? Can you name Federal Judges who are public about their sexuality? Or governors?

On second thought, I doubt Frank could get through confirmation, since he had that problem with the companion he was paying with Senate funds (and who was running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. can you? -- this is a discussion
of whether or not it should even be a goal.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. The question I guess is, does it make sense to make it a goal for Obama
to do something he legally can't do? To question people about their sexuality?

If you have a list of well-qualified, out gay people for the SCOTUS, I'd love to read it.

Isn't that what we should be doing? Promoting people who might otherwise be overlooked -- rather than expecting Obama to make illegal inquiries?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #43
48. If someone is openly gay, it isn't an illegal inquiry.
Why do we have list after list of female and visible minority candidates for this SCOTUS appointment, but not a similar list of GLBT candidates?

Please think about the real reason, and it doesn't include ENDA rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #48
54. RIght. But who are these openly gay possible appointees?
Why do we have lists of women candidates? Because we know they are women. Unfortunately, in most cases, we don't know who the gay candidates are. And Obama can't ask them.

These people can promote themselves, or their friends can promote them. But otherwise, I don't know how to identify them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #54
64. How about Marcy Kahn, NY County Supreme Court Justice?
Or Joan Lobis, NY County Supreme Court?

or Rives Kistler, Oregon Supreme Court Justice?

or Virginia Linder, Oregon Supreme Court Justice?

or Rosalyn Richter, NY State Appellate Judge?

Any of these candidates are sufficiently qualified, and some even more qualified as the other straight candidates I've seen floating around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #64
69. Finally. Thank you. I'll read up about them.
Edited on Sun May-03-09 11:01 AM by pnwmom
But which of these candidates, in your opinion, are more than "sufficiently qualified"? I'd rather concentrate on the ones that are "even more qualified."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #69
74. You'll never get a list of "even more qualified" because openly gay people were shut out of the
federal judiciary until 1994. And there appears to be only one openly gay federal judge in the entire history of the United States.

Such sentiments and the partisan politics that surround judicial nominations on the federal level help explain why there appears to be only one openly gay judge on the 875-member federal bench, where appointments are for life.

That judge is Deborah Batts, a Harvard University law school graduate and a former professor at Fordham University. In 1994, Batts was appointed by President Clinton to a trial court in the southern district of New York.

Batts, 59, declined to be interviewed. She has participated in gay-rights events, and in 2001, when her portrait was hung at Harvard Law School, officials there said her Senate confirmation marked the first time an openly gay person had joined the federal judiciary.


A 2006 article from USA Today


Straight people have made sure that we don't have a very long history of inclusion in this country. They've also made sure that we don't have a long list of qualified candidates for every open position.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #74
79. Then it sounds as if the efforts for now would be better spent at the federal
judiciary level.

Women, who openly comprise more than 50% of the population, had to wait hundreds of years before Justice O'Connor's appointment; and there have only been two women in history appointed. And yet, we have many female candidates among federal judges. Why would it be justified to appoint a less qualified openly gay candidate over a well qualified woman federal judge or governor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #79
83. Why do you assume that the gay candidate is the less qualified of the two?
Maybe we should just continue to appoint straight white protestant men, because there is never any doubt about their qualifications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #83
91. Because I was told that there were no gay federal judges, and I know there
are a number of women in the federal judiciary. I also can think of some well qualified women governors, but not openly gay governors.

For decades, when women complained about not being represented fairly in Congress and in the SCOTUS, the reply was that there weren't enough women lawyers at that level. Well, now there are.

But I have yet to see that there are a number of OPENLY gay candidates at that level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #91
103. And why is that? In part because some people seem to find the idea that there "might" be
closeted gay people in the federal judiciary enough of a reason to not even consider openly gay candidates. Which is part of the point of my original post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #103
114. I absolutely think Obama should consider excellent openly gay candidates.
Edited on Sun May-03-09 11:50 AM by pnwmom
I just don't think there are that many openly gay candidates in that age group and at that professional level. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #114
123. Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't a federal judge when she was appointed.
Was she not really at that professional level?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #123
127. How many female Federal Judges were there at that time?
Edited on Sun May-03-09 12:04 PM by pnwmom
Who were Republican as well?

She was probably the best they could do -- I'm not sure that's the case now though. There are many female Federal judges with excellent qualifications.

A lesbian would be great -- a two-fer, as they say. I'm just not in favor of a token candidate who isn't as well qualified as others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #127
131. So a "token" was OK when it was Sandra Day O'Conner?
Why slam the door closed behind her? All things being equal, it might be nice to get a talented gay person from the State Benches to further diversity. That would be a liberal thing to do...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. I didn't say that. And I don't think it was okay with Clarence Thomas, either.
Although she turned out to be much better than he.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #133
137. Then why do you care?
If you are perfectly fine with getting yet another white straight male person on the Supreme Court, then why even bring up strawman arguments about closet cases?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #137
139. Actually, I want another well-qualified woman on the Supreme Court,
whatever her sexuality is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #139
144. Then fine. You want that.
What are you doing in GLBT talking about closet cases? You're all over the map. What if the "well-qualified woman" was Condi Rice? I myself would like someone with demonstrated commitment to fair-minded legal decisions, no matter what gender or sexual orientation. It would be nice if some gay candidates were included, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #144
148. Oh, am I not allowed here?
Edited on Sun May-03-09 12:34 PM by pnwmom
Since I'm the daughter of a former "closet case," (who went on to live with a partner for 20 years) and I know many gay people who are not "out" in every sphere of their lives, I have some opinions on the issue. Sorry if you think I'm not entitled to them.

Of course it would be "nice if some gay candidates were included." And I'm sure Obama wouldn't eliminate a candidate because he or she is openly gay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #148
151. Where did I say you weren't entitled to your opinions?
I just want to know what your point was...I guess you feel that someone who is in the closet "counts" towards diversity...I myself do not. I would just call that a difference of opinion, not censoring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #151
153. You asked what I was doing in GLBT talking about closet cases
which sent me the message that you thought I didn't belong here.

What did you mean, then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #153
155. I'm just wondering what this opinion brings to the conversation.
If someone is living in the closet then they are living a life of straight privilege free of many of the challenges that come with being an out gay person. Obviously they have the challenges that come with not living true to themselves, but that is a different issue. Until they come out and live out, they are going to have a very different perspective on life then someone living life out already. That is why diversity in the workplace is something to be encouraged. I would just think that anyone coming to this conversation would already be operating under this assumption. That's all I meant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #155
179. You are wrong in thinking that a gay person can't be in the closet and be extremely,
Edited on Sun May-03-09 06:38 PM by pnwmom
painfully aware of the issues of straight privilege. This is exactly what keeps most of them trapped there. Men and women ages fifty and above grew up in a culture where they could be arrested simply for being gay, where the "enlightened" view was that they were not criminals but mentally ill. Most of them married, and acknowledging their sexuality could have led to the loss of their children. And many of them still live in parts of the country that feel almost like the 1950's in terms of gay/straight relations. I wish that younger people today could be a little more compassionate toward their older peers, and less smug about "closet cases" among the older generation.

Also, you are neglecting to acknowledge that there are DEGREES of being out, and that the large majority of gay professional people over 50 probably are not completely, 100%, shout-it-to-the-media out-of-the-closet.

You have been assuming that everyone thinks like you, but that isn't necessarily the case, is it? Congratulations to younger gay people who have been out to the world ever since they came out to themselves. But have a heart for the older men and women who have had a different lifetime's experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #139
145. Then I'm sure you understand that I, for one, want a well-qualified homosexual on the Court
whatever his or her gender or race is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #145
152. No, you want an out-to-the-media well-qualified homosexual on the Court.
This group makes up what fraction of the general population, would you guess?

Women make up more than half of the population. But you think an out gay man would be more deserving than a straight woman of the next spot?

This is almost an impossible situation. Which is why factors like gender and sexuality should only come into play when we are talking about equally well-qualified candidates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #152
156. I don't care if there is only one well-qualified out-to-the-media homosexual in the entire country.
I would still like her or him on the Court.

And I do think an out gay man would be more deserving than a straight woman of the next spot. Women have already had two seats to LGBT Americans' zero. Furthermore, women have had hundreds of seats on the federal bench and LGBT Americans have had one.

That is one seat in the entire history of the United States.

Keep that in mind, please, while you are trying to convince me that LGBT Americans shouldn't be campaigning for a seat on the Supreme Court immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #156
180. Yes, women have had hundreds of seats on the Federal bench.
Edited on Sun May-03-09 06:44 PM by pnwmom
Which is why there is no excuse for not putting a second woman, whatever her orientation is, on the Supreme Court.

But we simply don't know how many well qualified gay people there already are on the Federal bench, because you can't look at gay people and identify them. I assume that there are some, and if there are, that Obama will consider them on the same basis as anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #91
164. Then name one governor who was named to the court
in the last 50 years...ready, begin! Now list for me which of them have been Federal Judges, ready, go!
I can not think of a Gov getting even nominated. And yet you keep asking for a gay Gov. As if Govs often got SCOTUS nominations. Name them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #79
85. What if the gay person was a woman?
There is overlap between these two groups...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #85
89. I guess you haven't heard that gay people are white, male, over 50, and in opposite marriages.
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #85
92. Of course. There well may be, but apparently it doesn't "count" unless the
person is willing to be publicly identified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #92
95. Well, what use would it be if the person was in the closet?
I assume for the purposes of this conversation that an out gay person would be the type of person under discussion. DU seems unique in trying to say that a person in the closet "counts" as diversity in employment. It's a mystery to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #95
101. What use? Suppose Souter, for example, is gay. Does the fact that he
was never known to have been gay mean that he wasn't a good Supreme Court Justice? That he didn't contribute in his own way to a diverse point of view on the Court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #101
109. Yes, what use?
An out gay person will have experiences that a person in the closet will not have. I assume that an out gay person would have a better perspective when dealing with the cases that are sure to come to the Federal Bench in the next few decades dealing with gay legal issues. I think this experience would be more helpful. Plus, they would be good role models for gay kids who might like to have political heros to look up to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #109
113. If we can find a top level gay candidate who is willing to be media material,
Edited on Sun May-03-09 11:47 AM by pnwmom
great.

But I still haven't seen any real suggestions, except for a handful of state judges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #113
117. Well, for my purposes anyone would be better
than some of the mouth breathers we have on there already. But perhaps the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges would have some worthy suggestions--

http://home.att.net/~ialgj /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #113
120. Are you saying that state supreme court judges aren't real suggestions?
Justice Brennan was on the New Jersey Supreme Court when he was appointed by Eisenhower.

Justice O'Connor was also a state judge in Arizona when she was appointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #120
124. When Justice O'Connor was appointed, how many women were there in the
federal judiciary?

Now there are many, and it would be hard to argue that a top state judge would be more qualified than a top Federal judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #120
125. Excellent point.
I'm not sure why the goalposts keep getting moved here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #125
135. The goalposts keep getting moved because the assumption is that there isn't a qualified gay person
and in order to make the assumption true so straight people can pretend they aren't discriminating, the supposed qualifications are twisted to ensure that there will be no "qualified" gay candidate. This requirement that Supreme Court appointees have to come from the federal bench is a recent development. There are numerous examples of Supreme Court judges who had no judicial experience at all. It is merely an attempt to restrict the number of candidates by making the qualifications arbitrary and exclusionary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #135
170. Don't worry hulk, when a qualified gay is mentioned for SCOTUS our "allies" will be sure to point to
all of the meaningless alleged closet cases out there! :rofl:

Because a gay is a gay is a gay, no matter whether they are J. Edgar Hoover or a highly qualified openly gay woman, hey, they're all just gays! :eyes:

>>Stanford Law School professor Kathleen Sullivan, widely considered one of Americas top constitutional scholars, is being mentioned as a possible replacement for Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who has announced he will retire at the end of the courts current term.

Sullivans name appears on lists compiled by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and numerous law blogs. She is the founder and director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, and served as dean of Stanford Law School from 1999 to 2004.<<


http://www.gaypolitics.com/2009/05/01/out-lesbian-a-con ... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #170
171. But how do we even know she's really gay? Maybe she is a closted straight!
Has anyone asked her? :sarcasm:

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #171
174. So, true. The beleaguered str8's are afraid to pose for family pics
or have their spouses present at their swearing in, or pose for family photo-ops, nor to mention their kids.

Gosh, most are even afraid to discuss their opinions on marriage. :sarcasm:

I don't know what the dominant culture want now, they're so demanding, after all there are plenty of closeted str8's to represent them. :sarcasm:

Matthew Shepherds mother had to sit there and listen to lies about her dead boy from that beast fuxx and 17 dems voted with fuxx.

THAT'S why we need openly gay activists to fight for justice.

Oh, and bigotry like sh8t flows downhill, to "the everyman." To the least powerful person and the most vulnerable in society.

Weren't four teens recently acquitted of the murder of a young hispanic man, by a local jury? Another example of why we need hate crime legislation. :grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #120
192. Brennan was one of the best SCOTUS justices ever
so apparently state courts aren't dreadful places to look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creideiki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #43
53. Openly gay people aren't in the closet
The people that he would consider have personal lives that are common knowledge. Of course, if he were to nominate an openly gay person, that nominee would have to somehow get past the anti-gay Democrats in the Senate or they'll never come up for a vote. Think what kind of street cred Landrieu, Lincoln, or Nelson could get by being able to say that they turned the gay people away at the door. Think about the street cred that Obama can get when he reaches out to the social conservatives when he points out next time that not only did he stifle gay voices in the halls of power, he'd much rather hang out with homophobic religious conservatives than icky homos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Can you name a number of people at the level of a potential SCOTUS
appointee who are openly gay? I can't, off the top of my head, but I'd love to hear your suggestions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #43
63. wtf? -- if they're out they're out --
you're not asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. I don't understand what you're saying. If they're out, who are they then?
What are their names, so we can consider and possibly promote them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #65
70. i don't keep a fuckin list of judicial experts in my back pocket.
and neither do you apparently --

the point is that out an gay person won't have to be asked -- it'll be there front and center on what ever vetting gets done.

it won't be a secret file or even anything remotely like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #70
73. Okay. But you're assuming that there will be a number of such out people
Edited on Sun May-03-09 11:07 AM by pnwmom
among the ranks of those who would be vetted. I'm assuming that there will be gay people considered at that level, but not necessarily gay people who want to be publicly outed.

What if the person says, look, by the way, I happen to be gay. My friends know , my clerks know. But I'd rather not make a big deal about it -- my 80 year old mother doesn't know.

Should that person be eliminated from consideration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #73
88. LMAO. When the FBI goes to the neighbors for a background check
"Oh you mean the two women who live in that house? The lesbeans." :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #88
118. Right. The neighbors will know. That doesn't mean the candidate would
want to be publicly outed, or that Obama should make a public outing a condition of employment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #70
75. You don't have a list? I thought all gay people knew each other!
I know my cousin thinks that because she asked me once if I knew a lesbian from Colorado she met at a party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #75
119. Then how can you assume that there are qualified out gay people who
aren't even being considered?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #119
143. Because their names don't come up in any discusson of the "possibles."
There isn't an unlimited number of qualified candidates, and we have lists of women and minorities and straight white men. But nobody wants to talk about the qualified openly gay people.

And, as disappointed as I am to say this, President Obama has a weak record of considering LGBT Americans in anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #143
154. How do you know those names don't include any gay people?
Have you asked them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #154
157. If I do the research like I've done already twice on this thread and it shows
that they are all in opposite marriages or have had heterosexual intercourse to produce offspring at least once within those unions, I'm thinking you'll still suggest that at least one of them is a closeted gay person.

Why should I bother?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #157
165. "Closet gays" are a distraction, we need openly gay activists to shape public policy.
By mentioning the so caled "vast sea of closeted gays out there," "sarcasm: some want to reduce the politics of gay rights to a nose count.

17 dems opposed Matt Shepherd's hate crime legislation, we need strong gay voices in policy position and strong gay allies.

That's why you are correct, this is misdirection about how many closeted this or that...it does not matter if they are not voting for pro-gay rights policies.


Yet, this was the response by some when it was noted in another thread that an openly gay woman has been mentioned for SCOTUS on several lists as a good prospect and well qualified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #70
96. All gays keep a list one them: it's the "Homosexual Agenda!"
You nailed it and get it and so do others. Even if they play stupid.

During the confirmation for Alito and Roberts, their wives sat in the front row.

In America being a "good family man" or being a "married woman" is code for, they're not gay, they are like "us" and not one of "them."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #40
61. No, I can't produce such a list. I don't know how anyone would, really.
You can't tell who is gay by looking at them or listening to them, in most cases. If the person hasn't made a point of being out publicly, how would you know? And if there are a number of such candidates, I'd seriously like to know who they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #61
198. I have the LIST
It is secret. Gays only, you know
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #34
46. Think you mean J. Edgar the FBI guy, not Herbert the Prez?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. How do you know that Herbet Hoover wasn't a closted gay?
Apparently, a huge number of married people over 50 are gay now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #50
57. A significant minority of married people over 50 have always been gay.
Edited on Sun May-03-09 10:48 AM by pnwmom
This is nothing new. Until the last thirty years or so, most gay people were married and in the closet. Why? Because being gay could put you in jail, get you diagnosed as a mental case or, at the least, cost you your career. In many parts of the country, there is still concern that being openly gay could have repercussions on a career, child custody, or other matters.

Unfortunately, there are probably many more Gov. McGreeveys than there are Barney Franks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #57
100. Yes and that's what comes out during a job interview. My point exactly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #50
81. A. I don't "know" that Herbert Hoover wasn't a closeted gay.
But Herbert has been out of office longer than J. Edgar, and thus far, no stories have surfaced about Herbert pirouetting around in black lace dresses.

So I just have a hunch based on public information, is all. i.e. Herbert "probably" wasn't gay, okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #46
66. LOL -- yes -- my bad. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #28
84. Few interviews ask openly about sexuality, they do it sub rosa.
"How will your spouse adjust to the new job, if you get it. You know, the long hours?"

"How will your kids adjust to relocating?"

"Oh, a 53 year old woman, no kids, no husband. I see."

"Hmmm..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #84
122. A 53 year old woman, no kids, no husband.
Who doesn't volunteer that she is gay.

Do you just assume that she is if you're Obama?

Then do you out her publicly?

What exactly is he supposed to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #122
134. It is natural for gays and str8's to discuss their family life.
That should be encouraged.

When gay people do come out, then, if there is conservative backlash, as progressives we should support them, rather than telling them not to bring it up in the first place.

I have been talking about the fact that no one should be told that their family life should be kept secret when they are gay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #134
142. I totally agree. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #28
169. You Are COMPLETELY Missing the Point.
No one is interested in Obama or anyone else appointing a closeted gay person to public office. A closeted gay person is the same as a straight person, as far as voting/policy goes. That's the whole POINT of being in the closet.

There are millions of openly gay people in this country. Obama needn't ASK any of them about their sexuality, they will happily VOLUNTEER that information. And if they don't, the press surely would.

Gay people will not have their interests served by self-loathing closet cases, and to suggest we should be satisfied with the ASSUMPTION that we are already "represented" by such people is moronic at best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #169
187. You are wrong to assume that a closeted gay person, or (more commonly)
Edited on Sun May-03-09 07:03 PM by pnwmom
a gay person who is not 100% out-to-the-media, would vote the same as a straight person.

As I said to another poster, gay people who are still partially or completely in the closet are painfully aware of the issues of straight privilege. This is exactly what keeps most of them trapped there.

Men and women ages fifty and above -- the age group most likely to be appointed to the SCOTUS -- grew up in a culture where they could be arrested simply for being gay, where the "enlightened" view was that they were not criminals but mentally ill. Most of them married, and acknowledging their sexuality could have led to the loss of their children. And many of them still live in parts of the country that feel almost like the 1950's in terms of gay/straight relations. I wish that younger people today could be a little more compassionate toward their older peers, and less smug about "closet cases" among the older generation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
102. It's the newest way to tell us queers to sit down and shut up. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #102
107. And they say straight people aren't usually creative types.
They definitely continue to come up with new ways to say sit down and shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #107
108. Yes, we have seen a long list of them just on DU these past two years.
HE'S ONLY GOING TO SING ONE SONG!!1!!

IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE A TWO MINUTE PRAYER!11!!

and others!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
159. STFU and stop whining
Why do you keep demanding so much? He's only been president for 100 days. You guys make it so hard to support your pet cause when you act this way. Do you think Bush would even consider appointing an LGBT anything? Poutrage!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #159
172. here's a qualified openly gay woman, let's OVERLOOK her and discuss "closet cases."
let's pretend like John Roberts or Souter are gay, because that is a meaningless distraction as neither are known as gay role models nor as political activists.

But, of course to prove the OP's point, the minute a qualified gay woman is mentioned we spend half a day in a circle jerk discussing all of the "closet gays" as if their coming out was the issue, instead of actually discussing or supporting a woman on many lists today!

Yes, it's a new STFU- you gays already have many, many, many people in high places, only no one really knows about them - so sit down and STFU. :rofl:

http://www.gaypolitics.com/2009/05/01/out-lesbian-a-con... /

>>



May 1, 2009

Out lesbian a contender for Supreme Court nomination
Stanford Law School professor Kathleen Sullivan, widely considered one of Americas top constitutional scholars, is being mentioned as a possible replacement for Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who has announced he will retire at the end of the courts current term.

Sullivans name appears on lists compiled by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and numerous law blogs. She is the founder and director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, and served as dean of Stanford Law School from 1999 to 2004.

Sullivan has filed amicus curiae briefs in some of the most important Supreme Court cases involving LGBT rights, including Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.<<



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #172
173. +1
it's homophobic to keep discussing 'closeted gays' as if those who are out aren't qualified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #173
175. More than ever, with the rw gearing up , ala the Matt Shepherd libel
that we need qualified, openly gay people in public service.

Who will speak up for hate crime legislation?

Speak up against DADT, DOMA, fair employment laws?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuiderelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #159
182. That HAS to be a joke! "You guys make it so hard to support your pet cause when you act this way."
Edited on Sun May-03-09 07:37 PM by Zuiderelle
Edited to remove all the rest of the stuff I said. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #182
186. ummm, I do believe NMMNG, aka buffythefundieslayer is being
sarcastic. :crazy: you must not have caught her name change when everybody changed their names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuiderelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #186
191. Yes, thanks. I had missed hers. Appreciate it.
She did a pretty good job imitating some pretty typical posts around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #182
188. That was sarcasm
My entire post was sarcasm--a collection of the typical responses we get from nitwits whenever we dare to ask for the things everyone else takes for granted--like human rights, for example. Perhaps I should have added a :sarcasm: but I presumed it wasn't necessary. My bad. I apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuiderelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #188
190. Oh shit. I don't know who anyone is anymore.
definitely misunderstood that one! :blush:

I'm afraid, without recognizing your name, and having seen plenty of posts exactly like yours that were NOT meant with sarcasm, that I did indeed need that irritating sarcasm tag.

Good job on the imitation. :thumbsup: :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #190
199. No problem.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
193. I can say this much from personal experience:
I have had some jobs where I was "out" and some jobs where I wasn't "out."

The jobs where I was able to be "out" and worked with people who didn't have a problem with it, the typical difficulties of the jobs were just that; the typical difficulties of the job. It was a level playing field.

The jobs where I was NOT able to be "out" and worked with homophobic types were atrocious. The problems I had with those jobs were compounded by constant questions about why I'm not married, attempts to set me up with this guy and that guy, pressure to just fling myself at any single guy in the workplace, and homophobic slurs from coworkers. It was constant and it was relentless. It caused me to have to leave those jobs.

Where I live, talking to a manager about homophobic slurs and the other associated sexual harassment was out of the question. There was no way I would get any help there. The overall mentality where I live is against gay people.

I honestly do not see how anyone can claim that we can "hide" our orientation and that should be the be all end all answer. It is not. It just causes more problems. It causes us to have to be dishonest and it causes us to have to constantly put up with constant, relentless harassment about our personal lives.

Between being "out" (which I translate to mean honest) and "passing," (which I translate to mean dishonest, shifty, devious, and causing more problems than it is worth) I'll take being out and honest about who I am any day. People know they'll get honesty from me that way and it makes for a better working environment.

Of course, people in other situations may have different results, but if I can pull off being "out" in rural North Carolina better than I can pull off "passing," that's saying something major.

It's better to be who we are than shroud who we are in secrecy and lies. "Passing" leaves the impression that we are somehow dishonest and untrustworthy.

I've learned a lot going from "passing" to being "out." I'd rather be who I am and face an honest battle based on what I know and what REALLY applies to me, than fake it and face a battle in unfamiliar territory that I have no clue how to deal with.

My experience has been that it opens more minds and opens more doors, in time, to be out of the closet. To lie about who we are, causes more myths and lies to be propagated about homosexuality, in general.

While it might seem practical to some people to "pass," it is not the best policy in the long term.

Let's put it this way:
If you are a person who is in a situation where you can pass and do it because you feel you have to, I truly feel for you in your situation.

If you are a person who believes "passing" is the best policy and has no trouble with the dishonesty involved, I'd NEVER want anything to do with you. You have ALREADY proven yourself untrustworthy and dishonest to me. Trust matters whether you think it does or not. Honesty matters whether you think it does or not.

That's that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #193
200. rAmen
That's why it pisses me off so much when I hear that "you can just hide what you are" (to keep from enduring bigotry/so you have nothing to whine about) bullshit. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creideiki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #193
203. One of the main reasons to leave education
"If you are a person who is in a situation where you can pass and do it because you feel you have to, I truly feel for you in your situation."

It was a really bad situation. I tried two different school districts. I had students make homophobic remarks to my face thinking I was straight. I had students come to me in tears because they were afraid that if they came out that I'd not like them as much--and high school students in low SES communities are desperately looking for acceptance. I had pornographic anti-gay graffiti scrawled on the walls of one of my classrooms because the fact that I was single and had no girlfriend was simply not acceptable. I had two different administrations back up the homophobic students that did the harrassing and graffiti. I had one of the two teacher's unions back up the students.

It's time to deal with some grown-ups again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #193
207. There's a difference between hiding your orientation
and the fact that it's not something that comes up in an interview with a single person. (It might if a married person mentions a spouse.)

An interviewer can tell my gender by looking at me, but can't tell whether I'm straight or gay. And it isn't legal to ask. Suppose Obama did want to know which of the federal judges were gay. How would he do that? Just because a person hasn't chosen to go to the media about it, or join a LGBT org, doesn't mean the person isn't gay.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-04-09 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
201. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC