I don't think Eugene Volokh is an anti-gay bigot.
From almost everything I've read from him on this issue, he strikes me as the very opposite. A series of recent posts of his on gays, conversion to homosexuality, and risks of gay sex has ruffled more than a few feathers. You can check out the list here:
Those Who Sincerely Wonder Whether My Posts Are Motivated By Anti-Gay Animus
Sssh! We're Not Supposed To Be Talking About
Dangerousness of Male Homosexual Activity:
One More Final Post on Sexual Conversion:
Gays and Lesbians and Golf:
One Last Thought on Conversion and Sexual Orientation:
Why Wouldn't Gays and Lesbians Want the Bisexually Oriented to Experiment with Homosexual Behavior?
Response to Eugene's Post on Gay "Conversion":
Gays and Lesbians Trying to Convert Others to Homosexual Behavior:
If Volokh is guilty of anything, it's exercising a very poor choice of words. What Volokh describes as "conversion" to homosexuality has an entirely different meaning than the sense in which the bigots use that term. Julian Sanchez has one of the most sensible posts on the matter.
Eugene points out that if someone has a pre-existing same-sex attraction, gay friends or acquaintances may try to get them to act on those impulses if they haven't before. OK, obviously that happens. Except Eugene unhelpfully refers to this as "conversion to homosexual behavior" and considers it a counterexample to the idea that "homosexual conversion" is a myth. Well, first, the problem...is that that's not the myth. The relevant "myth" people are talking about is the idea that gays are going to try to mysteriously implant homosexual impulses in your dear sweet 12-year-old. And that's a sufficiently pernicious myth that Eugene's way of talking is signally unhelpful, insofar as anyone might read it as giving credence to that notion.