many gay publications: "In a year-end roundup of gay-themed books for 1993, one critic for San Francisco's Bay Area Reporter called the book 'terrible,' but nevertheless 'important' because of its widespread impact. Gay professor and author David Bergman chided Bawer for allegedly failing to appreciate 'the great spectacle of human difference,' but acknowledged that Bawer had expressed 'what many people feel.'" Among the book's admirers were James P. Pinkerton, who, writing in Newsday, praised Bawer's "live and let live" message. Describing the book as "a conservative manifesto declaring what the silent majority of gays wants and why", John Fink of the Chicago Tribune wrote: "If there is one book about homosexuality and gay rights that everyone should read, it is probably this one." In Reason, David Link wrote that "Bawer is not a champion of any cause except good sense... A Place at the Table is ultimately a defense of self-determination, and a much-needed one." Lee Dembart described it in the Los Angeles Times as "a remarkable, gutsy, even brilliant book" and "the most interesting, provocative and original discussion of gay themes that I can recall". Christopher Lehmann-Haupt gave the book a mixed review, describing it as "eloquent", "intelligent", and "eye-opening", but accusing Bawer of "sometimes twisting the logic of those he disagrees with", "relying too heavily on his own dogma", and "failing to come to grips with some fundamental issues". Still, he wrote, the book "smashes the common stereotypes of gay people to smithereens". In The Washington Post, Jonathan Yardley, too, found the book "imperfect", accusing Bawer of a "regrettable penchant for sweeping generalizations", "a surprisingly rancorous view of conventional heterosexual marriage", and an occasional "angry edge", but called the book "courageous" and felt that Bawer, whose stated aim was to approach his topic "with reason, not rancor", had fulfilled that aim "with precisely the qualities that distinguish his literary criticism". Moreover, Yardley supported Bawer's case for gay marriage, even though "the mere mention of [it] still sends millions of Americans into orbit". More conservative voices included Margaret O'Brien Steinfels of the Catholic magazine Commonweal, who, in the New York Times Book Review, described the book as "a model polemic" and admired Bawer's "efforts to be fair and balanced". Yet she rejected Bawer's call for same-sex marriage, arguing that insisting on it "is likely to prove... explosive". Gay-rights opponent Maggie Gallagher, while calling the book "fascinating", criticized Bawer for