It’s worth remembering a key Supreme Court case, ‘ROMER v. EVANS’ (1996) where the Court struck down a Colorado voter initiative that had nullified special considerations for homosexuals.

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/tmkeck/Cases/RomervEvans1996.html

I would especially call attention to Justice Scalia’s blistering dissent. Note Section III, Paragraph 5 of his rebuttal where after noting various legislative successes that homosexuals had enjoyed — “I do not mean to be critical of these legislative successes; homosexuals are as entitled to use the legal system for reinforcement of their moral sentiments as are the rest of society. But they are subject to being countered by lawful, democratic countermeasures as well.”

Justice Scalia’s dissent was a truly comprehensive review of the moral/legal issues involved here, and with valuable historical context.

There are some unfortunate parallels between that case and the current flap with Mr. Horowitz.

“We do not want government intruding on the voluntary associations we make as citizens or dictating to us our moral and spiritual choices.”

Mr. Horowitz assumes that moral matters have no influence upon the society and therefore should not be a political issue. Mr. Horowitz seems to define and equate moral issues with sectarian religious or spiritual issues. His assumption about morality is too limited and unsupportable. Too again reference CS Lewis morality is a question of what we ought or ought not to do. Slavery, desegregation and recently SUV’s have involved moral arguments. Any law should reflect some sort of moral reasoning or else we have tyranny.

Mr. Horowitz seems to attack Christian groups for seemingly selective outrage. He admits that the Human Rights Campaign is a radical group. He states that Christian conservative have not attacked an RNC Chairman who met with the ACLU. Has the RNC chairman met with the ACLU? Has the RNC chairman met with NARAL? If so and Christian conservatives were silent, then I would agree with the attack on selective outrage. However, I really doubt groups like Concerned Women for America would be silent if the RNC seemed to court NARAL or the ACLU.

Mr. Horowitz took issue with Mr. Knight’s comment about dissuading people from homosexuality. I understand Mr. Horowitz concern about mixing a political agenda with a spiritual mission. Dissuading people through politics seems incomprehensible. Dissuading people seems even more incomprehensible if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice. However, when one says homosexuality is not a choice are we discussing same sex desires or behavior. To say the homosexual activity is not a choice would imply that homosexual activity is compulsive. I doubt that many homosexuals would agree with that idea. On the other hand, to say that homosexuals do not chose homosexual desires is a none specific and unhelpful truism. No desire is ever chosen. I do not chose to love chocolate or steak or leggy blondes. Those struggling with same sex desires have the same choices as the married man who is contemplating an affair or 20 year old at spring break in Daytona. We don’t choose our desire but we do choose our response.

Finally, Christian conservatives and liberal Christians differ theologically as well as politically. Many Christians who are conservative or liberal have almost nothing in common except the title Christian.

There seems to be a great deal of inconsistency within homosexual ranks about whether this behavior is a choice or not. The more radical position (taken by GLSEN) is that sexuality is something we create for ourselves. There is some discussion of this in the “Queering the Schools” piece referenced in the other thread. The “inborn, innate” argument appears to have been relegated to use as a tool to overturn any “discrimination” (gays in the military, etc.).