Outing “ordinary people” is bullying, plain and simple.
Having said that, I recognize that politics complicates the issue. Although you can’t generalize about gay people’s politics, it is a fact that some gay people have made sexual orientation a political issue. This brings up the question of whether gay politicians must always reflexively vote in favor of “pro-gay” legislation. Saying “yes” assumes that all “pro-gay” laws actually benefit gay people. It also assumes that all gay people must agree with the provisions of any “pro-gay” law that comes up for a vote. This, in turn, assumes that all gay people agree on what gay people want, how they should live, how they should relate to the larger society, and what their political agenda should be. That’s a big assumption.
Should a gay legislator be punished by the “gay community” for failing to vote for a piece of pro-gay legislation? Most legislators aren’t elected by the “gay community.” They’re elected by a heterogeneous group of voters for whom sexual orientation, presumably, is no reason to reject a candidate. The question is, did that legislator’s contingency send him or her to Washington to look out for their interests or to play a game of gay politics? Should that legislator vote the “gay party line” or vote the way his or her constituency would want? Does being gay give the gay legislator a special duty to always look out for gay people?
I don’t know the answer.
