Here's some of Dave's comments:

As for using the individual, doesn't the public-figure rule apply? Mary worked more or less as professional lesbian in a high-profile job at Coors, so she clearly has no shyness about going public with her sexuality. And it's not like she has shrunk away from politics since then.

If Dems were using her sexuality AGAINST her, that would be a big problem. But what have they said? That she is a lesbian. That's not an insult to a lesbian. Unless you're in the closet, it's nothing to be ashamed of. I actually feel twinges anger at the suggestion that it's dirty politics. It suggests that the typical gay person would feel embarassment at the public knowing they were gay.

And taking it to a personal level, Dave adds:

I bristle at the suggestion that it's "cheap and tawdry" to mention that an out gay person is gay. That clearly implies that they would/should be ashamed by the mention.

Lynne Cheney is the one with the problem. If my mom went around screaming bloody murder for someone mentioning my gayness, I would feel horrible--because my mom was ashamed of me.

I doubt very much that Mary Cheney gives a rats a** if some church lady in Idaho knows she's gay. But her mother cringing at the woman knowing--that's gotta hurt like hell.

And frankly, well-meaning journalists cringing for her . . . that doesn't feel that great either. (And I assure you, they're well-meaning at Salon.) If Mary lived in Boise and was in physical danger, or perhaps professional danger, that would be different. But she's not, and she's out, and anyone cringing for her just suggests there's reason to cringe. And that's the part that hurts.