So, Elena Kagan's been nominated for the Supreme Court. Not a huge surprise. Nor is the explosion of outrage from the OMG SHE IS A GAY brigade.
Here's Bill O'Reilly, on Kagan and same-sex marriage:
"Americans have a right to know if their Supreme Court justice has an orientation that may or may not dictate which way she votes on a vital issue."Of course, if Kagan is gay, it would mean she would support gay rights. Just like women always support women's rights and black people always support black people's rights.
But seriously, has O'Reilly not been paying attention? Maybe he's just forgotten about Larry Craig and Ted Haggard, but there's another case in the news right now! Surely O'Reilly isn't arguing that George Rekers didn't actively oppose gay rights. I hope he isn't, because there's plenty of documentation.
(Also an indication of how straights, men, etc. are the "unmarked case." If Kagan were known to be straight, the right wouldn't assume that she was against gay rights. Because straight people are allowed to have their own opinions.)
Also, the UK elections. Nick Clegg sold out. Tories in government. I'm just trying to remind myself that on the political spectrum, they're around where the American liberal party is.