The Blade poses an apt analogy and a great question to the White House. However, it is just as important a question for LGBTQs to consider.

It is easy to continue necessary battle cries against a shrinking/ dying lot of proactive homophobes, transphobes and bigots across our land– still well-sprinkled within our local institutions and governments, too. That’s especially so where that ongoing anti-LGBT prejudice continues to adversely impact LGBTQ lives, public safety, etc.

But as anti-LGBT barriers– political, social, economic and religious– continue to fall in our favor, and at an increasingly fast pace, how do we deal with those people who once opposed LGBT civil rights, but have dropped their opposition?

How about those former opponents who have moved publicly a bit in our direction? Do we reward those that have done a 180 degree reversal, now in full support of marriage equality or other major LGBT issues?

If at all, how do we distinguish among past grievances? What weight do we give different bigoted ‘offenders’? Is it important to distinguish among their professions?

Should we keep an imaginary scarlet ‘B’, ‘H’ or ‘T’ stamped to a variety of past-but-notorious anti-LGBT foreheads? And for how long?

Indeed, maybe “some kind of statute of limitations” scale will be needed.

Doesn’t it beg the question, how far back does scrutiny need be given– clergy members, for Pete’s sake– for our president’s inaugural day festivities?

And is the burden we put upon others– and take upon ourselves in that process– worthwhile? Or even healthy?

Didn’t Lincoln put it best? “With malice toward none…”