Personal attacks are now commonplace in our public debate, so I have filed Jon B. Eisenberg’s ugly little hit piece (“The truth about that ‘liberal’ against gay marriage,” Oct. 2) in a folder labeled “Disappointing But Not Surprising.” But for the record:

• Contrary to what Eisenberg implies, I never wrote that “It’s perfectly natural to be a liberal Democrat but against gay marriage, because I am.” I don’t even believe such a thing! (Suggestion to Mr. Eisenberg: If you want to state accurately what you call my “theme,” either tell your readers what I actually wrote, or call me up and ask me to clarify.)

• I’m a life-long registered Democrat.

• I’m an Obama supporter.

• I oppose current leading conservative opinion on many issues, including Iraq, abortion, the death penalty, tax policy, climate change, race and immigration, and others.

• The think tank which I founded and direct receives funding from both left-of-center and right-of-center foundations and individuals.

• Contrary to what Eisenberg writes, my op-ed was not a part of “a larger Republican strategy.” I wrote the piece because the editors of the Los Angeles Times invited me to do so. (Suggestion to Mr. Eisenberg: If you want to state accurately why and under what circumstances an op-ed appears in a leading newspaper, don’t just take a guess! Call up the editor and ask her to tell you.)

• Contrary to what Eisenberg writes, the main point of my op-ed is to argue that liberal principles, such as respect for human rights and preferential treatment for those who are least powerful, can legitimately support the case for customary man-woman marriage. My personal “political profile,” as he puts it, was offered only as a brief introduction to my main argument.

• My wife’s name is spelled “Sacks” (not “Sachs”).

Your readers might also be interested to learn that, on the same day that Eisenberg’s article appeared, the Sacramento-based Capitol Weekly published an interview with me on the same subject. Just like Eisenberg, the Capitol Weekly reporter, Malcolm Maclachlan, wanted to explore whether or not I actually qualify as a liberal Democrat, and which foundations contribute the think tank which I direct. Yet unlike Eisenberg, Maclachlan actually spoke to me – that’s what journalists do, when they want to get a story right – so that I could respond to the questions being raised. I invite your readers to look at the Capitol Weekly piece, and then compare it to Eisenberg’s article. Which of the two is more informative? More civil? More decent and fair-minded?

Finally, I appreciate Mr. Eisenberg noting that my op-ed has attracted much attention and is being “widely circulated.” On that, we can agree!