"[You] have asked a question people shouldn't have to answer."

Good for him. He may indeed be a hypocrite, and that's something he's got to deal with. But I tend to be irked when public figures get pressured to come out of the closet, and particularly so in the political realm. One's sexuality is one's own business, no? So why is it okay to put pressure on them like that? Attack the issue, leave the individual to work their own sexuality and presumed hypocracy out for themself.

I can understand the argument that it's damaging to continued progress of gay rights if public figures are acting as if being labled gay is something to be avoided. But I think it's more damaging to be aggressive about it, and to use a person's sexuality as a political leverage point. In the end, who gives a rat's ass whether individual politicians are gar or not and what they're voting for? The righteousness of the desire for equal rights stands on its own, whether there are hypocrites working against it or not.

I think Gn2Dlnd hit it right on the nose. It's about hypocrisy. If a closeted gay man is advocating anti-gay legislation, that’s hypocrisy. If there were a politician of African-American descent who was able to “pass”, and did so – hid his ethnicity from the public and his family - and if he were trying to pass discriminatory laws aimed at African-Americans, then wouldn’t that be the same kind of hypocrisy? Should he not be exposed?

Perhaps. But I find there to be too much venom and not enough sympathy from a community that is fighting persecution. Should he be exposed? I suppose. I just feel the focus is a little bit too much on demonizing hypocrites (who almost invariably will shoot themselves in the foot without help, thank you very much) and not enough on addressing the actual issue.

Plus, the public calls to out public figures aren't limited to politicians, who are in a position to be actively hypocritical and affect things. It extends to celebreties (Tom Cruise, anyone?). I find the vehement calls for people like Cruise to come out to be...unseemly.

All of this exposes a dichotomy in the gay rights message. "My sexuality is my business...but public figures' sexuality is my business too." Like I said, I see it to a point, but I think it's done in an agressive, political way that trivializes homosexuality and lends support to those that would demonize the "gay agenda".

I agree when it comes to non-political public figures. If they want to live a miserable life hiding, so be it. But, IMO, it's a different matter entirely when my rights are at stake.

Marriage is not a right- it's a choice.

But allowing benefits of that choice to one group and not to another is discrimination.

Yeah-though from the votes people are still not going for the idea of gay marriage. Even in CO the whole idea of domestic partners fell flat. I think mostly because of the little things hidden under the good idea.

...and for the record, you all know I'm conservative- but I don't give a whit about gay marriage. Doesn't bother me a bit- and my vote showed it. Get married- don't get married- whatever.

And, left up to popular opinion in the 60's, anti-miscegnination laws would have stood.

I'd like to see marriage dropped from the realm of law all together, but as long as it's there, it's everyone or no one.

No argument from me- but I would not hold your breath.

I still don't get the issue- I really can not wrap my brain around why anyone CARES!

Of course in some cultures it's an arrangement