Elena Kagan, and a Brief Revisiting of the California Elections

As should be known by this point, Elena Kagan has been chosen by President Barack Obama as the Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. There are rumors that Elena Kagan is possibly a lesbian. First, these rumors are relatively groundless, and if she really is a lesbian, it would probably just be a coincidence. The rumors are (predominantly) based on her androgynous appearance. Physical and fashion cues are often (wrongly) utilized to construct sexual identity. It's convenient for opponents of both Obama and same-sex marriage to conflate the ideas and assume their manifestation in one individual, simply because they are more androgynous than the normal person (and therefore transform into a sexual Other).

Case and point, this article about the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay organization (although they would just call themselves a "pro traditional marriage" organization, to be fair). Kagan, who, in public, seems to be against a federal solution to same-sex marriage, is now enemy number one for the anti-gay movement. Why? This article suggests that the National Organization for Marriage has some sort of secret information. I'm not sure if that is meant to be satirical or not, but it should be. That secret information is almost certainly the rumors that she is a lesbian, and nothing more.

This is a terrible distortion of politics through a sexual agenda. It's one thing to oppose something. It's another to conflate the things you oppose to make something seem scarier, creating a falsity that skews the voting constituency.

These types of sexual politics and sexual sexual sensationalism bring me back to the California elections. Reading through the candidate statements, I came across a little-known Republican candidate for governor, Douglas R. Hughes. Whereas most candidates begin their statement with a broad and ideal portrait of their policies, agenda, or themselves, Hughes immediately delves into what he calls on his website his "number one promise": "As your governor, I will ensure all pedophiles will leave the States or volunteer to live confined to Santa Rosa Island, at no cost to Californians, as they will have their own self-supporting village, away from children." This is, of course, literally a form of very apparent segregation.

It is also an extremely narrow agenda, one that takes a rather radical position on one issue. I am afraid it may not, however, be perceived as radical. Hughes may be a smart person. He knows what gets people angry, and what one political tool he can use to get some votes: child rape. Most people agree that child rape is a bad thing. Some of those people will then make the same connection Hughes made, to segregation, or worse. This is, unfortunately, not at all a nuanced position; it would also be extremely problematic: how do you find the pedophiles? Sex offender registries are an easy way. However, that means you have to wait for the person to actually commit an act of pedophilia, and then wait for them to get out of prison (unless he proposes to send them to his "island" immediately).

But, isn't the point to prevent pedophilia? Is a pedophile witch hunt going to emerge? This is way too problematic and potentially dangerous. People will still vote for him based on this issue; sexual sensationalism has the power to stifle reason and logic for more willy nilly and vile approaches. I'm curious to see how he does during the primaries.

And, as for the primaries, please make sure, wherever you are in the United States, that you vote! And even if you don't like in the United States, make sure you always vote when you have the chance!