Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

I'm puzzled by this reporter's claim that there is a "contradiction" between (1) voting for an openly homosexual person for public office and (2) opposing homosexual "marriage." The reporter must be assuming (1) that opposition to homosexual "marriage" is necessarily rooted in animus toward homosexuals and (2) that this supposed animus extends to not wanting homosexuals in public office. That's absurd. There are good moral and legal reasons to oppose homosexual "marriage" that have nothing to do with liking or disliking homosexuals. Would the reporter find a contradiction in opposing both sodomy laws and homosexual "marriage"? If so, then I have contradictory views! One can believe that adult homosexuals have a right to have consensual sexual intercourse (in private) without fear of criminal punishment without believing that they should be empowered by law to marry. Is it all or nothing? Must one either love homosexuals (and want to give them everything) or hate them (and want to deprive them of everything)? Where does the New York Times find these reporters (or should I say "reporters")?

Addendum: I love my dog Shelbie, but I would oppose a law that allowed her to "vote."