ARE HUMAN RIGHTS A STATE ISSUE?: Jonathan Rauch replies to David Blankenhorn

I don't think I can add much in reply to David’s latest without repeating myself. But I cannot let stand his inaccurate and unfair claim that I have argued "forcefully" in other forums "that any national-level activity in opposition to SSM is in his view basically little more than morally repugnant gay-bashing." I am unaware of ever having argued any such thing in any forum, forcefully or otherwise. If readers are interested in what I really have said, I hope they’ll take a look at my book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. There they will find that I say:

"…The very reason I support the federalist approach is the reason anti-gay-marriage hard-liners oppose it. They want to stop the experiment from ever beginning. Repeat: ever. If you care about finding the best way forward for marriage and for gay people in a changing world, that posture is hard to justify."

They will find that I also argue that neither gay-marriage opponents nor gay-marriage supporters should be allowed to impose their preference on the entire country:

"The simple answer--really not simple at all--to both schools of all-or-nothing activists is just this: try federalism first. If state-by-state incrementalism fails, there will always be time for national solutions later on. Neither side can be blamed for wanting to impose its moral vision on the whole country and for hoping to preempt any mixed or moderate alternative, but the nation would be unwise to let either side have its way. Memo to federal judges (especially those on the Supreme Court): do us all a favor, and butt out. Memo to constitutional amenders: do us all a favor, and butt out."

link

posted by Eve at 5:07 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home