It is difficult to know how his moral compass would affect his policy decisions about issues related to the care and treatment of those with diseases issuing from homosexual activity. I have a hard time imagining him withholding funding, resources from, say, AIDS research, even though the primary sufferer of that disease (in this country) is the homosexual.

His role–every government role–has some moral framework for how they fulfill that role. Holsinger’s would be to see to the public health. And while his moral commitments to the teaching of Scripture would necessitate honesty about his view of homosexuality, I don’t think that commitment necessarily would have to impinge on the fulfillment of his role. He can still be deeply committed to the containment and cure of AIDS without compromising his moral convictions. And he can still warn against the inherent medical dangers of homosexual sex without violating his mandate as a public servant.

I suppose all Dr Holsinger has to do is to invoke the memory of a previous Surgeon General who was no less committed to his faith in Christ and still an advocate, not of homosexuality, but of care and compassion for those in the lifestyle. Of course we’re talking about C. Everett Koop. He, you will find in Yancey’s What’s So Amazing about Grace, was deeply respected by the homosexual community, but not for his advocacy of homosexuality.

If Koop can negotiate that fine line between advocacy for and antipathy against homosexuals, why can’t Holsinger?