Damned if You Do or Don't

I'm not concerned with Elena Kagan's sexual orientation. It doesn't matter UNLESS it becomes a factor influencing Constitutional decisions. I don't know about Ginsberg or Alito or Scalia or Thomas. It doesn't seem to matter there so far either.

But, there are questions from some folks who do seem to care. I don't know why they care, but they do. This, however, confuses me:

The Softball Connection

So, there is a picture of the nominee engaged in an athletic pursuit. Doesn't seem controversial to me. But, wait!

"It clearly is an allusion to her being gay. It's just too easy a punch line," said Cathy Renna, a former spokesperson for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation who is now a consultant.

What? A woman playing softball is presumed gay? Methinks Cathy doth protest too much.

In our current society we've largely begun to ignore such concerns. Gay or not isn't supposed to matter, particularly for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. If they are against defamation, aren't they supposed to support that noting sexual orientation without comment is a positive thing? If playing softball is a lesbian activity, then noting that the Supreme Court nominee plays softball is a positive of the G & L crowd.

Since 1972 we've had Title IX in federal law. It mandates that colleges and universities offer equivalent collegiate athletic opportunities for men and women. Scholarships for women athletes are the very positive result of that law. Are all women athletes lesbian? It seems unlikely.

Softball is a woman's collegiate sport. The men play games like football and baseball. Women play games like field hockey and softball. Men and women both play some games like basketball and soccer. Softball, however, is a predominantly woman's sport in most schools.

Should Kagan be pictured playing softball? Is it a slur against lesbians? Is Kagan lesbian? Is the Wall Street Journal prejudiced? Is Cathy Renna overly sensitive? Does anybody really care what time it is?