Jeff Cavanaugh wrote:Antonia L wrote:Jeff, I appreciate your reasoning and reasonable contribution here. Here is my summation of the situation, as I see it: Chick Fil A has had a reputation for some time of being opposed to marriage rights for gay people. The reason for that reputation was their contributions to organizations that work to deny these rights. However, until just recently, no one from the company had come out and made any kind of clear cut statement, so it wasn't altogether certain what exactly their goal was. The reason people have seized on this radio interview is that it has sealed the deal, in a way. You're right, on its own, it's not enough of a reason for angst. However, coupled with the donations, it's enough for me and a lot of other folks to forget about ever handing them money.
That's entirely reasonable and I see your point of view.
It would be nice if those who are concerned about this would be similarly reasonable and admit the possibility that:
1. At least some people who are not in favor of gay marriage aren't motivated by hate; and,
2. Not all conservative Christian talk about promoting, strengthening, or even defending marriage is merely a cover for homophobia. Conservative Christians get a lot of (justified) flak for perceived hypocrisy when they claim to care about marriage, while divorcing as frequently as the rest of the population. When organizations like Chick-Fil-A and the groups they give to talk about marriage and family, a lot of the time they really are just concerned about positively strengthening those institutions, and that's a good thing. Not that there's no anti-gay-marriage element to their "agenda," but - at least with some of these folks - it isn't what drives them.
At the end of the day, the issue comes down to two fundamental issues:
1) the definition of marriage and decisions regarding who can marry
2) the right to the exercise of religious freedom
The right of gay people to marry is in no way an infringement on one's right to exercise religious freedom. Yet, the forwarding of a religious agenda to oppose gay marriage is to work to limit another person's rights.
So while these people may not be motivated by hate and while they may be pro-marriage, the result of their actions and investments is the restriction of the right to marry of a whole segment of the population.
What Christians don't care to realize is that I don't care about the wrath of God AT ALL. Just because the wrath of God matters to them, does not mean it does (or should) matter to me. Now I do care about their ability to believe in the wrath of God and to exercise a religious belief system that is important to them. That is a fundamental constitutional right that I do support. But to use their belief system to suppress another person's rights (be it even if the intention is somehow meant in good faith) is to work against the very democratic principles that guarantee their religious freedom in the first place.
At the end of the day, when you erase all the gray, you either support the freedom of marriage or you oppose the freedom of marriage. I'm tired of hearing excuses for such opposition. Call it what you will, but it's still opposition, it's still anti-democratic, and, as Antonia said, it's a losing perspective.
Time is on my side. Yes it is.
