We are being duped. Yep. If you are a liberal and for gay marriage you have just been delivered red meat in the form of CEO Dan Cathy’s very simple affirmation of his believe in traditional family–along with God’s impending judgement. You already know his company gives a lot of money to causes that politically work to influence against gay marriage. If you are a social conservative in the political realm who is a Christian, then the red meat was thrown on your porch as well–wrapped in the news of a champion for your cause. We are all being seduced into polarizing politics.
It is much easier to sign up for “Support Chick-fil-A Day” than volunteer in your community and impact the needy. On the other hand, It is much easier to sign an online petition in a Bay Area town where as a secular humanist you are the majority than say find intelligent ways to influence people with reason. Are not humanists all about bringing things to the rational? If you are the majority whoever you are, it seems you will bully the other side. You will politically make your dominance shine, inflicting a penalty to the minority.
So, in the south–or other Bible-belt-coated regions–you may very feel empowered to say what you will against people not like you. All of your friends are likely to be in the same club. If you are living in the Bay Area–as I spent most of my life there so I know–then you equally feel entitled to rally emotions to a feeding frenzy that bullies people and a symbol of the other side. They happen to be the minority in your town. So, you can get away with it. Right? Being king on your block then is the goal, not being a place where freedom and liberty can be expressed with respect.
Picking sides only feeds the current political machine that is broken. Most of the public is tired of the nit picky TV ads and negatively-spun facts whirling on the airwaves. I know I am. Some of us see deeper issues that need more intelligent discourse. I for one, believe in the traditional family unit as God’s design. But, am I for banning rights of a very small minority? Is it the states role to decide these issues? In other words, should government choose how we believe about marriage? I think not. At the same time, should the state deny rights of some to form a family in ways that are non-traditional?
All of these require some thought. Research is still young, and marriage in general is on the decline since no-fault divorce became the law of the land in the 1970s. This is proof that the states hand in our very precious institution may actually do more harm than good–even for those who think same sex marriage should be defined as law by the US government. For now, we have to take the red meat and jockey for power on each side. Whoever wins will bully the other side into submission. Is that really an answer?
Here are some further questions for dialog:
Personally, I believe in traditional marriage, but does that mean I have to rely on the government to prohibit anything that does not look like what I believe?
Intolerance is what some claim, does it really make sense to fight it with the same thing? Rinse and repeat.
Is the government at the Federal level really the answer for this issue? Are there not other options besides going nuclear on both sides?
Will boycotting a business punish the owner, or penalize the little guys who work for them? Is that worth it?
Is there an acceptable way for Dan Cathy to have expressed his belief? Or, maybe a way a bit more helpful to his cause?
How do we have a civil conversation about something when we have differing world views, faith backgrounds, and politics? Is it even possible?