I try not to write "link posts" too often -- posts where I'm just linking elsewhere on the web, rather than writing something out of my own head -- but I had to share this fantastic post from Jamie Larue's myliblog.
How then, can we claim that the founders would support the restriction of access to a book that really is just about an idea, to be accepted or rejected as you choose? What harm has this book done to anyone? Your seven year old told you, “Boys are not supposed to marry.” In other words, you have taught her your values, and those values have taken hold. That's what parents are supposed to do, and clearly, exposure to this book, or several, doesn't just overthrow that parental influence. It does, of course, provide evidence that not everybody agrees with each other; but that's true, isn't it?
I feel it's really a model response for librarians dealing with challenged books. Fantastic.