There are two thoughts that are important to keep in mind whenever discussing the issue of homosexuality in the public square. It seems to me this is so self-evident, so obvious, that it should go without saying, but there is much confusion on this point. When the issue of homosexuality comes up in the public square, it isn't uncommon to equate the concerns for homosexual liberty with the concern for racial equality. This is a faulty parallel because with homosexuality we're not talking about something morally benign like skin color or ethnicity. I don't know of anybody who has made a genuine case for the moral relevance of the pigmentation of someone's skin or for the moral relevance of his ancestry, per se.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality.
So this is not the same situation as President Truman's endorsement of equal rights for African Americans that the President cited in his address. This is not the same as the Italian American foundation dinner. We're not talking about morally benign qualities that are innate to one's birth. With homosexuality we're talking about something different. Although some will argue that homosexuality is constitutional, the evidence is not good that homosexuality is in the genes, that they were born that way.