Sexuality not relevant to high court choice

By denying rumors that Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan is a lesbian, and countering with "evidence" to the contrary, the White House is inadvertently affirming the relevance of sexual orientation when making judicial appointments.

Whether Kagan is now or has ever been a lesbian (only her softball coach knows for sure), the White House should not allow itself to be drawn into a public discussion of her sexuality or anyone else's.

This should be no more of a qualifier or disqualifier for public office than race or religion, which could also influence an individual's position on various issues. Had President Obama fulfilled his promise to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy during his first 100 days in office, Kagan's sexual orientation would likely be a nonissue now. He would already have sent a loud and clear message, echoing from sea to shining sea, that on his watch, federal law no longer promotes nor tolerates discrimination of any kind.

In the absence of such action, leaders on the conservative right are demonizing Kagan, and playing on fears that she will destroy our nation's social and moral fabric by advocating for the "gay agenda," which would afford gays the same legal rights, obligations, and benefits heterosexuals have long enjoyed.

If anything is "un-American," it is opposing this.

Sheryl Jedlinski

Palatine