I suppose. I just don't like the fact that the article exists solely based on the premise that a nonhomosexual has to justify speaking up for a homosexual.
It's that precise dichotomy and separation that we need to be moving away from, not framing entire blog posts about.
I mean, I don't like it either, but it's not at all uncommon for straight men to avoid standing up for gay men for fear of being perceived as gay.
I don't see the article as a defense of JGC's sexuality in any way, but as a challenge to stand up for justice even of those who are different from us.
Sure, I agree with that, but it is nice to show the world that "non-members of group X" can stand up for group X anyway. This is still a bit of a tricky thing. See non-members sticking up for a group can imply weakness, and goes against certain empowerment based philosophies. Think how many times you've seen the equivalent of "I don't need you to fight my battles" in some "X movement" themed movie.
It's that precise dichotomy and separation that we need to be moving away from, not framing entire blog posts about.