In Wednesday's Letters to the editor, readers sound off on a Times editorial questioning, "Does Antonin Scalia hate gays?"

Keith Keilman, of Mountain View, thinks so:

What does a Supreme Court justice have to do before The Times will give permission to use the word "homophobe" -- comparing homosexuals to murderers and ruling that they should be labeled criminal isn't enough?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) should be praised for having the courage and wisdom to correctly point out Antonin Scalia's homophobia.

And, you know what, I don't need The Times' permission. Scalia is a homophobe.

San Francisco's Michael P. Clarke has another take:

Your editorial, like Frank, fails to distinguish between animus toward homosexuals and animus toward homosexual conduct.

You quote Scalia twice talking about disapproval of certain kinds of conduct, but present no evidence that Scalia has any feelings at all toward certain people. There is no necessary link between how one feels about a person and how one feels about a person's conduct.

A wife may hate the fact that her husband never remembers to put down the toilet seat, but one cannot conclude that she therefore hates him. A father may tell his son that it is unacceptable to smack his little sister, but that does not mean the father does not love the son. In fact, it is more often a sign of love, respect or at least concern when someone has the courage to tell you when you're behaving badly.

And Gail Wise, of Los Angeles, sees a bright side:

I see the brouhaha over Frank's remark as a sign of progress. In the past, few were bothered by being called a homophobe. Now, the term is considered an insult on a par with bigot or racist. This is good news.

Letters about the Employee Free Choice Act, expert witnesses (including those who testified for Phil Spector's defense team), why semesters are better than quarters, and finding a reputable surrogate agency, too.

Photo: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2008.  Credit: AP Photo/Rob Carr.