A great column by David Link:
It’s hard, these days, figuring out what you can and can’t say about homosexuality. This is a problem I never imagined the gay rights movement would lead us to. David Axelrod described the new world order most succinctly on behalf of the White House. Discussion of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s sexual orientation “has no place in this process. It wasn't … an avenue of inquiry on our part and it shouldn't be on anybody else's' part." Printing an old photo of Kagan playing softball goes too far.
If you think I’m overstating the case, even Andrew Sullivan has agreed to shut up about it. This is serious.
Axelrod's problem, of course, is generational - he still doesn't get it and there are no openly gay people near the Oval Office - and political - he's terrified of defending a lesbian Justice. HRC head Joe Solmonese's position is just homophobia-phobic, as is his entire closeted operation (ever wonder why they can't call it the Gay Rights Campaign, instead of the Human Rights Campaign? It was designed so people could get mailings without tipping off their homosexuality).
Here's Solmonese, the lap-dog to the Democratic fundraisers who put him and maintain him in his position, to ensure that nothing real gets done to advance gay rights, but that the money keeps rolling in:
"As a gay American, I want to see a nominee who respects the constitutional authority of Congress to promote equality and civil rights. But her private life is simply not relevant."
So the representative of gay Americans believes the closet is a part of "private life" that is in no way relevant to anyone's position on the court. But for Solmonese, diversity still matters:
We commend President Obama for his commitment to diversity and expanding the number of women on the Court. Diversity on the Court brings a broader view of the way that the law affects real people, including LGBT people.
So let's get this straight. It's important that we have "diversity" on the court when it comes to women but not when it comes to lesbians or gay men or bi or trans people, in which case the entire question is irrelevant and should be kept under wraps, and those asking a simple question be tarred as bigots.
Does anyone believe HRC has any real interest in advancing gay rights if it would ever, ever upset their paymasters in the Obama administration? Now you know, in part, why they have achieved nothing of any substance on the federal level for twenty years.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.