R.T. Neary
June 14, 2010
The Kagan charade
By R.T. Neary

Elena Kagan certainly brings a great deal to the table during the upcoming Senate hearings, but she intends to keep her real persona totally under wraps.

Clearly if her sexual orientation is directed towards those of the same gender, it affects her mode of thinking, legal issues included.

Since choosing to exercise the reconciliation process to pass a health care bill, the Obama administration has ratcheted up their agenda, with the Kagan nomination now foremost. The previous nominee was merely involved in a dress rehearsal, and her appointment to the court has given them a confidence, which now should be classified as hubris given the solid Democrat Senate majority. They expect clear sailing.

The Obama plan, however, is not to have Kagan's sexual orientation addressed, and society will pay the price for decades. Her orientation has not shown itself to be incidental, but to be at the core of her reasoning.

No better example of where she is coming from is evidenced than by her vociferous opposition to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy while she was Dean of the Harvard Law School. Because of this policy she had military officials barred from using offices on the premises to answer questions relative to service in the armed forces.

As a demonstration of how much she was at odds with the Supreme Court, which she now aspires to serve on for a lifetime, they voted 8 to 0 to overturn her action. This was a rebuke of the highest order, but it certainly shows the thinking she wants to bring to our nation's final arbiter in the near future.

While she was serving in the Dean's position at Harvard Law School in 2003, the Goodridge decision was announced, and the state's Supreme Judicial Court based their 4 to 3 ruling on the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the state's constitution. The merits of the long-delayed decision itself, the Governor's subsequent actions as well as those of the Legislature in Goodridge, still leave serious questions. Its attempt to re-define what constitutes marriage is at the very core. And by any layperson's reading of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, one can see the open window that proponents plan to use to give its impact to every state in this nation as regards the decision's findings

Harvard University may not look to be directly involved in the Goodridge decision, but their fingerprints are all over it. Before it received the plaintiff's name, its goals were openly discussed behind those ivy walls. Now Goodridge's re-definition of our millennia-old concept of marriage remains relatively dormant, but with its substance intact it is about to raise its head, and it is directly pointed toward the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

There is an agenda with the same-sex orientation issues involved in Goodridge on a collision course with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and it involves a test of our glorious history of traditional marriage of a man and a woman and the resultant traditional family that historically created a rock-solid cornerstone for society.

With all that the mistakes of people in this society and their human flaws have brought to marriage and family, we cannot allow our representatives to be deceived by high-powered campaigns to eliminate the solid underpinnings.

Elena Kagan is hoisted on her own petard by vehemently rejecting the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We have to conclude that she certainly must accept the obverse of it, which is for a Senator to ask her about her sexual orientation and for her to tell. Additionally, in 1995 she has called this hearing process for the appointment of Supreme Court Justices "a vapid and hollow charade." The Senate must direct her to demonstrate otherwise.

During the 2008 political campaign we repeatedly heard Barack Obama profess his commitment to transparency, which goes hand in hand with the public's right to know. Surely we do have a right to know! There is a great deal at stake here decades of decision-making of enormous proportions at the very highest level of government.

We want that transparency.

Senators, insist on it!

© R.T. Neary

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)