Sorry, but that's not the way I read it. In the article he referred to the gays as merely seeking "civil rights." How can anyone by against civil rights, if that's indeed the issue? Then he says this:
"I have this to say to Paul: A delegation to the chairman of the RNC to demand that he have no dialogue with the members of an organization for human rights is itself intolerant, and serves neither your ends nor ours."We should recognize the homosexuals as merely seeking "human rights," says Horowitz. And it is "intolerant" to ignore them. Looks like Horowitz did "remotely say" exactly what you claim he did not.
Sorry, I think you have a jaundiced eye then. Even after your attempt to explain your interpretation, I still don't see how you've concluded that Horowitz says "support gay rights". I think you're a little taken in by the anti-gay sophistry.