"While you and I may feel that "the anti-gay thing is getting worn out," it is a very safe bet that it is NOT getting worn out for a substantial portion of the American electorate. To dismiss this issue out of hand is not only naïve, it is (I believe) self-destructive to the long-standing health of liberal ideals. Either we stand up for our views/values, or we (hypocritically) sweep them under the rug. The conservatives have no qualms about being open about THEIR views, so why should we?

If sunshine is indeed the best disinfectant, our dithering on the issue of prospective Justice Kagan's sexual orientation may lead to a much bigger setback for her views than being coy about it. Why the shame?

It is altogether unbecoming--not to mention the fact that there is much to gain, politically, from openness. It is very doubtful whether a national plebiscite with the question "Should we appoint a highly qualified and intelligent lesbian to the Supreme Court" would come out anything but positive. Don't come in the back door! Go in through the front door with a mandate! That said, I think the confirmation will be rocky, but I believe it will be much rockier if Ms. Kagan hides her homosexuality and it comes out (it WILL come out, those hearings are awfully thorough) and show her to be either duplicitous (at best) or mendacious (at second best). The "anti-gay thing is worn out" excuse is no defense against what happens next," - a commenter at the New Yorker, responding to Jeffrey Toobin's strange personal assessment.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.