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.
I have a sense that you will not be open to these considerations, but I think you have the notion of making moral judgments all wrong. That capacity is for guiding your own actions, not for the purpose of judging others.
The intrusion you prescribe is that of an absolutist.