Hitler’s homosexual cadres

Rocket Man has kindly picked up where I left off last night in the discussion regarding Republican state representative Arlon Lindner. Rep. Lindner indeed needs some instruction on the details of the depredations of Nazi rule, but not the kind of politically inspired grandstanding that inspires us to want to come to his defense.
To go back to the two black DFL state representatives who expressed offense at Lindner’s expression of horror at the AIDS epidemic in Africa, one wants to know precisely on what ground they take umbrage on behalf of Africans. Are they African? If they were addressed as Africans, would that not constitute a genuinely profound offense? What gives?
We know what gives, and it has nothing to do with racial or ethnic sensitivity, or concern with historical accuracy. The game being played instead involves stigmatizing certain absolutely bona fide points of view — for example, the view that sexual behavior differs fundamentally from race and does not properly belong under the umbrella of civil rights law — as beyond the bounds of civilized discourse. Or the view that certain members of the left — regardless of their ethnic birthright — have left their religion behind and substituted politics for religion. Thus Lindner’s reference of a couple years ago to the nominally Jewish DFL state representative Michael Paymar as a member of “the irreligious left.”
For amusement purposes only, let us return to the point I suggested regarding Hitler’s homosexual cadres. Anyone familiar with the history of the Nazi party knows that male homosexuals were prominent among both the perpetrators and the victims of Nazism. As head of the SA until his murder by other of Hitler’s goons on the Night of the Long Knives, Ernst Roehm was one of the essential instruments of Hitler’s rise to power. He was also a flagrant homosexual whose sexual depravity knew no bounds. His service to Hitler was so important that when he came under intraparty attack for his homosexuality, Hitler defended Roehm (and his homosexual cadres) in words that make Hitler sound like a good DFL liberal in the mold of Allan Spear or Phyllis Kahn.
As early as February 1931, Hitler issued a remarkable decree concerning “the attacks on the private lives” of “very senior and senior SA officers.” These, as Hitler saw them, were based mainly on circumstances “wholly extraneous to the context of [their] duties to the SA.” He “vigorously and on principle” rejected all requests to “rule” on these. Hitler protested that the SA men’s “private life cannot be an object of scrutiny unless it runs counter to vital principles of National Socialist ideology.”
Do you suppose that any of the politicians weighing in on the historicity of Rep. Lindner’s comments on homosexuals and the Holocaust will introduce this element of complexity into the discussion?