Timing is everything. Had Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy expressed his views on gay marriage at any point between the early 1830s founding of the Democratic Party and May 7, 2012 when the President evolved, he could have claimed solidarity with the stated position of those now out for his blood. Now it’s “Chic-fil-Hate.” If only he had come out in opposition to oral sex. “Chic-fell-Ate” is just sitting there unused.
As someone who supports gay marriage or some facsimile but fears that judicial challenges under the guise of equal rights will create problems beyond imagination (more on that later), I am a bit baffled by the backlash against the position taken by the restaurant. A boycott has been urged because Chic-fil-A’s president expressed views that are against the idea of expanding the definition of marriage and because money is given by the corporation to aid candidates that share their view that marriage should be a union between man and woman. I support the boycotters. Spend your money where you wish and where you think it will be well spent. But why on Earth would you boycott an organization that is spending money to influence voters to elect an official who shares the views that the person you voted for holds? Where is the vitriol for Obama? He said the same thing as Dan Cathy on many occasions. Worse, he said he supports gay marriage in 1996, and dumped the idea for political expediency. The “Chic-fil-Hate” comes off as manufactured.
There are many arguments in favor of gay marriage that can be summed up as “Two people love each other and what can be wrong with that?” I sympathize, but ask, what has marriage to do with love? The idea of loving, or even knowing beforehand, your spouse is relatively new. Marriage, from an administrative viewpoint, is about the transfer of property and the payment of taxes. That sounds like it was set up for the protection of the wealthy. If you think that that only the peerage cares about such things, imagine a duke with a thousand head of cattle and acreage to match. Now imagine a shepherd with ten head and two acres. Who is more concerned with the title and ownership of an individual animal?
I hold a certificate from the state of Alabama that says that I am married to my wife. It is a tax document that gives us rights of survivorship with no tax penalties. There are a few other benefits but they all deal with my relationship with the state. I was married in the Catholic Church. Before God and the community we have bound ourselves and we never considered the approval of the state. That Catholic wedding is what matters to me and I dare anyone to challenge its validity because they hold religious views that I don’t share. If they do, it brings their own into question.
So my belief is that two people should be allowed to marry no matter what their gender. I mentioned that I have problems with how the agenda is being forwarded earlier. It must be a legislative effort. A judicial wave of the hand would be disaster. Written laws must assume that words have meaning or the laws are worthless. Marriage has meant the unification of a man and woman for centuries. To pretend it has not is denial. Even those that have stretched the definition – the sheik with 20 wives, the Mormon with 21 wives because he is showing off, and the ancient Roman with a marriage contract of a few years – still held to the man with woman formula. Man and Woman. That is what marriage means. I am afraid of court challenges that want to change the definition of a legal word like marriage because I am a person who thinks that the government is full of shit and says so with no fear of prosecution because I know what treason means. Currently.
No matter what side of this you fall on, the Chic-fil-A sandwich is undeniable delicious. Here’s an attempt at making it at home. I’ve not vetted it myself, but if it’s anything like the restaurant version, it needs extra pickles.