Looks like it's "I TOLD YOU SO" time.

In a post not long ago, I noted that gay activist busybodies and anti-gay busybodies both share a similar mindset where it comes to privacy in matters of human sexual freedom. They don't like it:

There are gay activist busybodies who don't believe in leaving people alone, and they are assisted by anti-gay busybodies on the other "side."

Andrew Sullivan typifies the mindset of the former.

Writing in (where else?) WorldNetDaily, he argues that lesbianism is a relevant factor in considering someone "for any public service," because it's a character issue, and homosexuality is immoral:

Media, here's your question: "Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?" Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: "Yes" or "no."

Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite "progressive" protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality - or a lack thereof - a pertinent factor in contemplating one's fitness for any public service - chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.

But as to caring deeply about the sexuality of others, he finds common ground with Andrew Sullivan, whom he cites with approval:

Although the mainstream media refuse to do their job, some in the homosexual-activist press are stepping-up to fill the vacuum.

Homosexual blogger Andrew Sullivan, for instance, writing in The Atlantic, opined: "In a free society in the 21st century, it is not illegitimate to ask [whether Kagan is gay]. And it's cowardly not to tell."

It seems to me that as fewer ordinary Americans care deeply about these things, the people who do care deeply will become ever louder.

What I can't decide is whether I should keep deeply ignoring them in the hope they'll go away.