I respect your instincts here, but I think it important to specify if you actually believe a person should be free to be a homosexual and actually to say so without official condemnation resulting from that exposure? What is your view. Here it is important to be definite as to what rebellion you mean. I think you cannot import to it the meaning you mentioned when adding that you thought she is in "sin". Do you wan to police the public sphere to keep out the sinful???
Under no circumstances should someone who is openly engaging in sin be considered as some sort of spokesman about values or considered someone we should listen to for entertainment or education.
There is no moral difference between listening to Tammy Bruce as a radio talk show speak on Gun Rights as it would be to listen to a Porno Star lecture us on tax cuts resulting in the middle class spending more to stimulate the economy and how that is a good thing.
By doing so we are granting legitimacy to a known major character flaw in that person, not rejecting that person because of that major character flaw that they willingly and unaplogetically continue in as if there is nothing wrong with it at all, and by doing so, we all just sit there and wink as if their open sin is ok, just as long as there is an R next to their name.
To know of the personal behaviour of the person, to ignore how wrong that open personal behaviour is just because we agree with some points on the political spectrum is not an excuse to allow that person to become a publically accepted spokesperson on values (LIKE SHE HAS WITH HER BOOKS) or any topic like Gun RIghts (LIKE SHE HAS WITH HER KNOWN PUBLIC VIEWS).
People are ignoring her other KNOWN public stances that they FREELY and LOUDLY reject John Kerry for in the last election: ABORTION.