He's against the bill on federalist grounds. If that's his argument, he's probably right. My philosophical point about double standards and hate crimes stands, and I don't believe for a minute that George W. Bush's real objection to this bill is on federalist grounds. This is a man who signed the Schiavo bill and endorsed the FMA and the Leave No Child Behind Act. But the bill does violate for me a basic federalist principle, and further entrenches a concept of hate crimes that I deeply dislike, regardless of the group involved. I also don't believe that the bill would prevent a single crime against a single person. Jamie Kirchik has a good take on National Review's take, which at least openly champions the idea of excluding gay people from such protections, while allowing others - because of ""historic teaching[s] of our major religions". I had no idea that Christianity teaches hatred of gay people, but NRO appears to believe so. My favorite line from the CBN story is the following:
I know you Rudy haters will say that the federalism argument is a cop out but if you're a social conservative, as long as he's against it, that's all that matters right?
Yeah, they're against it for principled federalist reasons, aren't they? Just ask yourself: what socially conservative argument conceivably exists against treating hate crimes against gays the same as hate crimes against blacks? Unless your "social conservatism" is entirely about legitimizing hatred.
(Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty.)