Did Elena Kagan bear Trig Palin?

Andrew Sullivan is obsessed with homosexuality, both his own and that of others. He now demands to know whether Elena Kagan is a lesbian. I may be wrong, but my guess is that it is about as likely Ms. Kagan is a lesbian as it is that Sarah Palin is the mother of Trig, another deep question that Sullivan continues to ride into what should be his well deserved oblivion.
I would prefer not to know about Kagan’s sexuality. If she chooses to keep her sexuality to herself, she has my support. And I’ve been able to get a handle on the motherhood of Trig Palin to my own satisfaction without Sullivan’s help. Indeed, I had a handle on it even before Sullivan took up the “issue.”
Sullivan raises the question regarding Kagan in his column “Answer the lesbian question, Ms. Legal Eagle.” The column was published in the Times (London), one of the great papers of the free world. Why the Times allocates its precious space to Sullivan’s column seems to me a somewhat more difficult question than whether Kagan is a lesbian.
Sullivan cannot discuss Kagan’s sexuality without riding a few other hobby horses. According to Sullivan: “The far right has already identified her as a ‘lesbian homosexual’; and the gay blogosphere openly discussed her alleged lesbianism weeks ago.” One infers that the extremes represented by the “far right” and the gay blogosphere have met. We are apparently to deduce that only Sullivan continues to pursues the “issue” in the appropriately benign spirit of free inquiry that it demands.
I’m pretty sure what Sullivan means by “gay blogosphere,” but less certain what he means by the “far right,” as he provides no citations. Perhaps he means those who concluded that he lost his mind pursuing the “issue” of Trig Palin’s parentage.
To placate Sullivan, Kagan must out herself. Thus the fate of liberalism in the Sullivan mode.
Sullivan complains that “my own attempt to inquire in as positive a way as possible last week — I’d be thrilled to have a gay Supreme Court justice — was simply ignored by the Obama press operation and smacked down elsewhere as an outrageous and unethical question.” He somehow carries on, however, and looks on the bright side: “[T]he good news is that everyone has an interest in finding out[.]”
Do you sense that Sullivan might have lost touch with reality somewhere along the line?
I have a few more questions of my own. Will someone in a position of authority pull the plug on Sullivan? Might Frank Rich be available to counsel him once Sullivan is put out to pasture? Is there a worse columnist outside the Times (New York) than Sullivan? These, it seems to me, are the questions that Sullivan’s column legitimately raises.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan responds at the Daily Ditch, with his usual brilliance.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.