As I blogged earlier this week, five Haverford Township commissioners signed on to a letter to the editor reacting to a column I wrote a couple of weeks ago criticizing their proposed ordinance to protect gays, cross-dressers and transexuals and outlawing discrimination against them.

Why, I wondered, shouldn't law-abiding sufferers of pedophilia also be covered by the law.

The reaction of the Haverford Five was outrage. How dare somebody suggest that someone who suffers from a deeply ingrained psychological disorder might or should be protected from discrimination in their township.

"Vile," "Warped," "Ignorant," "Bizarre" are just some of the words they used to describe the the column.

There was a day, not too long ago, when the same words might have been used to describe the very idea of same-sex marriage. Now, same-sex marriage is described as a civil rights and justice issue and being imposed on society by federal and state judges, often over the objections democratic majorities.

Anyway, the column I wrote began:

With Haverford Township poised to be the 19th municipality in the state to pass a non-discrimination law to protect gays and form their own Human Relations Commission, the supervisors may want to rethink the wording of their new ordinance.

After all, “sexual orientation” covers more ground than they would like to think.

In their angry letter to the editor condemning the column, the Haverford Five, failed to point out that their ordinance contains clear language defining "sexual orientation" to mean "homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality." While, there is certainly an argument to be made that there are other sexual orientations to be found within the realm of human desire and behavior, the ordinance, as worded, made my hypothetical case, basically moot.

The commissioners could have easily said so, but for some reason, chose instead to mislead and mischaracterize the argument raised in the column, and to ignore its substance.

Today's print column has more.