It seems that in any minority group, anyone who stands up against the popular opinion is instantly a target for the sharks to shred. Whether it's a black man speaking against the corruption and hypocrisy of certain black leaders, politicians with centrist views or a gay man who is (horrors!) a conservative, the schoolyard mentality prevails. Although I personally feel that the "Village People" mentality that Sullivan decries is one of the attractive facets of today's homosexual community, I strongly respect Mr. Sullivan's personal strength in consistently bringing his personal feelings to the public, and for being a strong gay voice. Kudos to you, Mr. Sullivan, and to you, Mr. Rothman, for having the wisdom to recognize the truth of this situation.

-- Chris Jenkins

While I agree with the notion of sexual privacy (and all other forms of privacy), I must take issue with a few of your points.

First, you state that the individuals reporting on Sullivan's sexual life are out "to punish him for his political views." However, later in your article you state that you "actually believe Ehrenstein and Signorile went after Sullivan for reasons of principle. They are sincerely offended by what they see as Sullivan's passing judgment on gays who differ from him, especially his nasty attacks on gay leftists."

So, which is it? Is this reporting a revenge of some sort, or are they simply responding (in one way or another) to Sullivan's shared opinions on morality?

I'm also surprised that you would leave unaddressed the use of the term "sexual McCarthyism" in describing Sullivan's current situation. McCarthyism involved false accusations and unfair blacklisting. No one is accusing Sullivan falsely -- he has sought sexual favors online and he has made sweeping statements regarding morality.

And while I agree with you that Sullivan has "a right to his contradictions," so too do journalists have the right to report on those contradictions. To insist otherwise would sound to me like the most blatant form of journalistic immaturity: "I have a right to contradict myself, but don't you dare call me on it!"

-- Mara Baz

Andrew Sullivan has taken on increasingly vexing positions in the last decade, espousing conservative positions while still claiming credibility on gay and lesbian issues. As a gay man who is certainly left-leaning, I do appreciate Sullivan's viewpoint, though I often disagree.

But as someone who calls so clearly for gay men to claim responsibility for their actions, I have absolutely no sympathy for his "sexual McCarthyism" defense. It's downright laughable -- and a scurrilous argument that could have been used to swat away some of his past arguments with equal futility. He is a public figure with ideological stances on these very issues. I don't think these actions completely undermine his stated opinions, but they do help me, as a reader of his, to put his opinions in perspective. I will continue to read him and consider his arguments, but I am glad he has been exposed

-- Martin Brennan

Andrew Sullivan lists on his Web site the many reasons that Signorile was perfectly within his rights when writing his article -- Sullivan's openness regarding his HIV status, his previous relationships and his thoughts regarding the AIDS crisis.

What Sullivan has just learned is that communication is a two-way street. Gary Hart learned this the hard way too -- remember "any reporter who followed me around would be pretty bored"? In other words, Sullivan started it.

It's really quite simple -- if he did not want people poking around his sex life, he shouldn't have written about it. Criticizing other people's sexual mores is also pretty much an open invitation to have yours put under a microscope. And trying to deny recent rises in AIDS infection rates doesn't just make people mad -- if they believe you, it can make them dead. Also, nothing on the Internet has ever been, or ever will be, private. Most second graders know that.

-- Ayah Setel

Salon Politics: Unflinching daily political news, analysis and commentary.