Reply to Mark

Two comments--and a question.

1. I'm very drawn to the SGP, as Mark sketches it. But I doubt many--or, indeed, any--Catholics who (like Rick?) are Reps would be drawn to it: The socio-economic agenda is in the same neighborhood as the socio-economic agenda of left-Dems (not to be confused with the centrist-Dems who presently control the Dem Party).

2. Mark's critical comments about rights-talk are misguided. There is nothing wrong with rights-talk per se--though there is often something wrong with particular rights-claims. I have spelled this out in chapter 2 of my book, The Idea of Human Rights (1998), in commenting on Mary Ann Glendon's critique of rights-talk. See pp. 48-56. A couple of years from now, I hope to have a new book out called Human Rights as Morality, Human Rights as Law, in which I return, at some length, to the matter of rights-talk. For the moment, listen to Jurgen Habermas: "Notwithstanding their European origins, . . . [i]n Asia, Africa, and South America, [human rights now] constitute the only language in which opponents and victims of murderous regimes and civil wars can raise their voices against violence, repression, and persecution, against injuries to their human dignity." Come to think of it, JPII is a fan of rights-talk (i.e., human-rights-talk), isn't he?

Now, the question for Mark: What does the Platform of the SGP say about discrimination against gays and lesbians? In particular, what does it say, if anything, about civil unions, same-sex marriage, etc.? Not that a party platform need take a position on every major issue of the day.

Michael