So I haven't done much writing lately, but it seems like everyone is talking about Chick-Fil-A and its president, Dan Cathy. The following are my thoughts, taken from an email to a friend who prefers (perhaps wisely) not to debate politics via public internet forum.
It's good to hear from you!
Thanks for the email - I am always glad to hear your opinion on
things, as I feel I can usually trust it to be well-thought out,
respectful, and include a better understanding than my own of any
given subject from a different perspective. I understand your
reluctance to weigh in on public internet forums, as I often find
myself forgetting that one shouldn't argue with a fool because people
may not be able to tell the difference, but I kind of wish you would
reconsider. I think that the more visible debate is between reasonable
and intelligent people, the more everyone can fully see both sides and
inform their opinions. Plus, it's good to see mutual respect among
people who disagree, which is hard to come by these days.
I've been thinking a lot about that last part for a couple of weeks. I
have said for a long time that the cultural divide in this country is
the most harmful thing about our society. More than the philosophical
differences on either side, it seems more and more that it's the
people on either side that don't like each other. On healthcare,
abortion, tax law, gun law, etc., I try to see both sides of the
issue. I have my own opinions, but that doesn't mean I can't see what
the other side is saying. I understand very well when you say that
most of the people you interact with have different views on many
things, as I fall mostly outside the norm of my peer group on the
majority of political issues. This doesn't affect the respect with
which I view my friends, family, coworkers, etc.
The trouble, of course, comes when people start talking about
homosexuality, specifically in regards to marriage. The trouble with
the pluralistic approach when it comes to this issue is that there is
no acceptable (in my eyes) middle ground. Person A can own a gun while
Person B chooses not to, but Person A can't live in an America where
gays are treated equally in the eyes of the law while Person B
doesn't. While I do feel very strongly that homosexuality is not for
anyone on the outside to judge, what most inflames me is the
paternalistic approach that those arguing against gay marriage take
for society. The parallels to anti-miscegenation laws from the last
century seem undeniable to me. The Supreme Court ruled (correctly, I
and most would say) that those laws violated the 14th amendment's
guarantee that no state can take away from a specific group the rights
that it protects for others, without due process. Constitutionally, it
seems such a cut and dried issue that it makes running across those
who oppose gay marriage especially frustrating. The only basis for
denying same-sex couples the right to marry, then, is a religious one.
And while the 1st amendment doesn't expressly guarantee the separation
of church and state as many believe, several Supreme Court rulings do.
If marriage is a secular arrangement, churches have no right imposing
their beliefs on those who are not members. If marriage is a religious
sacrament, then the government should get out of the business
altogether.
I think that our society is at a very important time when it comes to
gay marriage. Here, today is equivalent to Alabama in 1950 during the
last big civil rights movement. The next few years are critical in the
fight for equality. I fully believe that gay marriage will be
protected within the next 30 years, but when that day comes is
something we can influence. If those rights were guaranteed tomorrow,
rather than 30 years from now, think how many more survivors will
receive death benefits, how many partners will be allowed hospital
visits, how many couples can have beautiful weddings and pledge to
love and honor and hold each other in front of friends and family in a
way that we as straight people take for granted. Those are some of the
most important events in a person's life, and right now millions of
people are denied those moments for no legal reason.
As someone who eats at Chick-Fil-A regularly, but not especially
frequently, I am aware that a very small amount of the money I spend
there makes its way into the hands of anti-equality groups. For a long
time, I ate there knowing full well the politics of the owner. As you
pointed out, chicken has little to do with marriage. But with Dan
Cathy's recent reaffirmation (and really, doubling down) of his
beliefs, and with us being so close to a tipping point, eating there
just doesn't seem a viable moral option anymore. If I give 12 cents to
a cause that I oppose with every ounce of my body and extend marriage
inequality by just a few minutes, I'm making a difference in the wrong
direction. It's especially unfortunate that all of the good
Chick-Fil-A does, which is substantial, is tied in with this mess.
That was my moral justification for going there for a long time: my
money did more good than harm. However, I do fully believe what I said
yesterday: until you get basic civil rights down, the rest just
doesn't matter. People deserve to be treated with dignity and respect,
and saying that one person's love is not as valuable or as real as
another's denies him dignity and respect.
Let's not forget where Dan Cathy made his remarks that reignited this
issue in the public eye: he was giving an interview, attempting to
establish his company as an example of the Southern Way of Life to
attract the segment of the population to which that appeals, in which
I generally count myself. This time, I think Mr. Cathy made a quick
generalization about the way he and his coworkers feel, thinking that
it would make them seem trustworthy and down-home to their fans,
without realizing it would alienate many of them. The implicit support
of that position by silence and continued patronage is much more
harmful to the fight for equality than the few pennies that make their
way from my pocket into the pockets of those I disagree with. I know
that I don't have enough money to make an appreciable difference in
the fight for marriage equality, and Dan Cathy isn't really donating
enough to make a very big difference. What this whole thing is really
about is that Chick-Fil-A as a company is attempting to cash in on its
homophobia, and I find that to be an offensive position. For many, his
beliefs make him and his chicken more appealing (look at the support
of Mike Huckabee's Chick-Fil-A appreciation campaign); for me, his
outspoken approach to the issue has made it hard for me to support
him. Rhetoric is powerful, and symbolic gestures are often more so. As
long as Chick-Fil-A is making them for the other side, I think they
need to be met by those who stand up for equality.
