Interesting how three people take the statement, “No, not ‘must,’ but the question should be asked,” and seem to read it as “believe,” “assume,” and “seriously believe.”
If a person had no other information, he could still make a pretty good guess as to which side of the “SSAD is wonderful!” / “No, it isn’t” debate is on the side of rationality just by watching the reactions of the partisans.
“Why would you believe her to be a lesbian if she is a born-again Christian active in her church for 25 years? This makes no sense at best and is a horrible slur against the woman at best...”
(1) Lots of people who suffer from SSAD attend church.
(2) When a woman reaches 60 without marrying, it makes a lot of sense to ask the question.
(3) Asking a question is not a slur.
“I guess we should assume that nuns are lesbians as well.”
(1) Nuns are married to Christ.
(2) So far as I know, Miers has not taken religious vows that would bar marriage.
“Do you seriously believe she can't be good person, competent, energetic, intelligent, insightful, diligent, but not married?”
(1) I haven’t expressed any “serious belief” in this matter.
(2) Do you seriously believe someone can't be a good person, competent, energetic, intelligent, insightful, diligent, but still unfit for high office by reason of same-sex attraction disorder?
Absent a public disclosure or advocacy, why in the world is this a bit of your business?