I can not believe that the Family Research Council, whose lead anti-gay doctor, has just himself, been realized as having 'inapprociate same sex relations', has now come out and is opposing Elena Kagan for Supreme Court because they think that the media is 'hiding' her sexual orientation.
First, WHEN does the media hide 'breaking' news.....if it bleeds it leads, and that would surely be a bleeder!
Second, WHY would/does it matter what her sexual orientation is? Do we ask all nominees about their sexual activities prior to nomination? What if they are guilty of affairs? What if they have been married several times? How many of you can name the SCOTUS justices that fall into the above categories?
Third, WHAT does sexual orientation have to do with her qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice?
Fourth, WHO does FRC think they are in relation to the law, to deem that someone is fit or unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice? They are supposed to be an expert (using that term loosely) on religion, not law.
Fifth, WHERE is the separation of church and state, when we, as a nation, allow and are so influenced by a group such as FRC, to dictates the morals of law.
It is my professional opinion that FRC is merely trying to re-focus attention away from their own 'troubles' with Dr. Rekers and shine a light on that of Elena Kagan. Whether Dr. Rekers truly needed rent-a-boy to help with luggage and messages remains to be seen. Whether Elena Kagan is gay, remains to be seen. HOW do either of these situations impact the average American? The answer should clearly be, not in the least. If the good doctor is gay, he is a hypocrite and a farce, if Kagan is gay, she is simply a gay attorney. Dr. Rekers has testified in several cases where he has advocated stripping gays of rights, he, in his own right, has had far more impact on the lives of everyday people that Elena Kagan, SCJ or not. How often does a 'gay' issue come before the Supreme Court? If and when 'gay' issue(s) would come before the Supreme Court, there are 9 Justices, do we, as a country, not have faith in our judical system? The Jews and Catholics thing seem to work out just fine. The Black and Latino thing seemed to work out just fine.
Could it be that the FRC is once again trying to influence the vote and sway the vote by focusing on one litmus test? Could it be another sad plea to drum up contributions to its cause, the cause usually boiling down to how best to raise money to sustain itself.