In Wednesday night’s debate, Senator Kerry invoked the fact that Vice President Cheney’s daughter is gay in an answer to the question of whether homosexuality is a “choice.” Almost immediately, some pundits cried foul. Lynne Cheney, Mary Cheney’s mother, went further: “The only thing I could conclude is that this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And, of course, I’m speaking as a mom. And a pretty indignant one. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.”

Other conservatives were just as upset. Here’s one blogger’s response: “Last night [Kerry] allowed his obsession with his own selfish desire to win a point overshadow the appropriate boundaries of taste, compassion, and kindness. Mrs. Cheney has the right to call him a bad man. And women across the nation have the right to see for themselves that he is willing to victimize them if it comes to padding his advantage, reputation, position, or standing.”

My quick, one-word response to this is: Huh?

How on earth is it “tawdry” to mention an obvious public fact about a member of Mr. Cheney’s family? How is it “victimization”? All Mr. Kerry did was invoke the veep’s daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn’t a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to “victimization” is if you believe someone’s sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn’t. Once you concede that, there’s no issue here.

Mary Cheney is out of the closet and a member, with her partner, of the vice-president’s family. That’s a public fact. No one’s privacy is being invaded by mentioning this. When Mr. Kerry cites President Bush’s wife or daughters, no one says it’s a “low blow.” Indeed, an entire question segment Wednesday night was devoted to bringing Messrs. Bush and Kerry’s families into it, asking them to elaborate on their relationships with strong women. When Mr. Kerry mentioned Mr. Bush’s daughters in the first debate, was it a “low blow”? So why a different standard for the veep’s daughter?

What’s revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many – even in the mildest “We’ll tolerate you but shut up and don’t complain” form. Slate’s Mickey Kaus, for example, cannot see any reason for Mr. Kerry to mention Mary Cheney except as some Machiavellian scheme to pander to bigots. Again: Huh? Couldn’t it just be that Mr. Kerry thinks of gay people as human beings like straight people – and mentioning their lives is not something we should shrink from? Isn’t that the simplest interpretation? In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like Mr. Bush and Mr. and Mrs. Cheney who don’t believe gays are antifamily demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I’m not outing any gay person. I’m outing the double standards of straight ones. They’ve had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose.

Let me give you an example of the double standards here. I remember once being driven around by a charming woman on a stop on a book tour. We talked about my book, and she averred, after chatting all day, that she had nothing against gay people, she just wished they wouldn’t “bring it up” all the time. I responded: “But you’ve been talking about your heterosexuality ever since I got in the car.” She said: “I haven’t. I’ve never once discussed sex.” My response: “Within two minutes, you mentioned your children and your husband. You talked about your son’s work at high school. You mentioned your husband’s line of work. And on and on. You wear your heterosexuality on your sleeve all the time. And that’s fine. But if I so much as mention the fact that I’m gay, I’m told it’s all I care about, and that I should pipe down. Don’t you see the double standard?” Candidates mention their families all the time. An entire question last night was devoted to the relationship between men and their wives and daughters. Mentioning Mary Cheney is no more and no less offensive than that. What is offensive is denying gay couples equal rights in the Constitution itself. Why don’t conservatives get exercised about that?

Mr. Kaus posits a perilous race analogy:

“What if Kerry were debating a conservative on affirmative action, and that conservative had a black wife, and Kerry gratuitously brought that up in an attempt to cost his opponent the racist vote? Would Andrew Sullivan approve? I don’t think so….”

First off, I don’t buy the cynical explanation of Mr. Kerry’s reference. But secondly, affirmative action isn’t a strong enough analogy. Let’s say the president was proposing the real analogy: a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. Now let’s say the veep’s daughter was married to a black man. Would it be relevant then? Of course it would. But there is an obvious solution to this debate: Let Mary Cheney speak. She’s running the veep’s campaign. She’s an adult. Why can’t she tell us if she’s upset by Messrs. Kerry and Edwards’s remarks? Give her a microphone, guys. What are you afraid of?

Mr. Sullivan writes every day for www.andrewsullivan.com.