WP:Consensus does not mean democracy; see WP:NOT.  Just because the gay Wikiproject believes things should be done a certain way and there is little dissent within the Wikiproject, does not mean that this is how things should be done in articles seemingly important to their eyes.  After all, James is a political and religious figure infitessimally more important to analyze or discuss in much less personal terms than having to do with sexuality or other habits.  After all, James wrote a treatise on smoking as repellant, but this is not so big a deal because of its lack in uniqueness or value in comparison to his policies.  Most gay Wikiproject participants admittedly find James a guilty hypocrite for all done in his name by fundamentalists, against gays.  This is essentially the problem.  The gay Wikiproject is taking a side and setting it into stone, all the while decrying "persecution!" when the odds and ends of Wikipedians here and there in the Wikipedia community find a problem with saying that James was "indeed, gay!" without proof, just a conflict of views that are veritably lost in time.  The gay Wikiproject takes speculation and purposeful homophobic defamation of the king's character and turn it into a monumental case or trial on homosexuality, probably about the king's motives in the King James Version Bible and verses used to support condemnation of homosexuality.  Don't take this personal!  The life of James has everything to do with a new and unstable, sometimes tyrannical government in power.  It has little veracity with regards to sexual conspiracies, unless one follows the king's involvement in aid to "favourite" Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset in trying to take another man's wife by murdering her legal husband.  This of course, is hardly homosexual.  24.255.11.149