Legal Commentary

My home-state Senator, Jefferson Sessions, has announced: "I don't think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job" of Supreme Court Justice.

So, that's nice.  Thanks, Jeff.  But it does raise some difficult questions:

1) Are "gay tendencies" more acceptable than full-on gayness?  So, for instance, someone who has cheated on his wife a couple of times with a man, but is still basically on the DL, is a better candidate than one of those typical gay-marrying Mainers?

2) That "per se" bit intrigues me.  Is Sessions saying that a "gay tendencies" candidate is only presumptively, but not absolutely, debarred from the position?  Or is he saying, "I think a gay candidate may be perfectly qualified for the position, but I'm hoping that if I use enough double negatives, my constituents won't catch on"?

3) What about people who fail to acknowledge that they have "gay tendencies?"  So, Kevin Kline in the first half of In & Out (the inspiration for the title of this post) = unqualified, but Kevin Kline in the second half of In & Out = qualified?

4) With friends like these . . . ?