That title is about me. This could as easily be titled “In Which I Offend Everyone II” (for part I look here.)
First let me piss off at least half of my audience when I say that I am pro-gay-marriage. Marriage, not civil unions. The reason for this is that I believe marriage is a stabilizing thing and therefore good for society. And male/male couples – though the statistics don’t seem to bear me out – lacking whatever is supposed to make women more stable in mating – though again, the statistics don’t seem to bear me out, but I think that’s a wobble of the times – need the stabilizing influence of a ceremony and a public commitment to hold the course.
Yeah, it is a radical departure from the way marriage has been viewed for centuries, but for millennia, before the innovation we’ll call double monogamy, marriage was viewed as the union of a man and several women or, alternately a ceremony whereby a man acquired a woman’s promise of fidelity but in which he, himself, remained free to play the field with no consequences. In many parts of the world that is what marriage still means.
Yeah, we could just have civil unions, but look here – it’s already happening, where it’s allowed – that IS what will destroy traditional marriage, because younger people will view it as less scary than marriage, and if they can have the legal benefits with the “freight” of tradition of marriage, they’ll do that. At the end of that, we are France where no one ever gets married. This is bad for children and bad for society.
Now, some people are afraid gay marriage advocates will force churches to perform these against their doctrine. I used to snort at this. I mean, how many Baptists rush into the Catholic church demanding to be married there? (FYI that would be against Catholic doctrine. In fact, even just one of the couple not being Catholic means the case has to go through ecclesiastical trial and a dispensation has to be obtrained.) How many Jewish couples flock to mosques demanding a wedding ceremony then sue when they don’t get it?
That would be insanity, right? And gay marriage advocates are no crazier than anyone else, right?
This is where I piss off the other half of my readership. Guys – you’re making it hard for me to believe you shouldn’t all be in straitjackets, or at least shouldn’t all down a good dose of Prozac with your Cheerios every morning.
What’s that you say? Hater you say? Well… there you go again.
Look, children – shut up, sit down. As I tell my teen and early twenties sons, you act like two year olds, you get treated like two year olds – I have TONS of friends who don’t agree with me on gay marriage. I have tons of friends who don’t agree with me on much of anything. Hell, I have friends who are communist. I think they need to learn history, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re bad people AS PEOPLE.
On gay marriage, some of my more violently opposed friends ARE gay. Some oppose it because they think it will up the ante on getting in other people’s face in a vain attempt at getting the approval mommy and daddy denied. Some oppose it because they think it will destroy the bohemian aspects of gay life. And some oppose it because given our common law marriage laws and alimony suits, no gay guy will ever feel comfortable letting an unemployed friend crash on his sofa for a few months.
And yeah, I have a bunch of friends who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons. It is not my business to get between my friends and their G-d and tell them what they can and can’t believe. As PEOPLE they’re not bad, and they wouldn’t mistreat a gay person for being gay. (THOSE people are bad as people.)
I even have friends who believe in gay conversion therapy. Look – I have friends who believe in crystals, auras and that they’re aliens in human bodies too. Other than the fact that these quirks have enormous entertainment value (sue me, I’m a writer) they are otherwise sensible people, if you ignore the blind spot.
Do I picket their houses? Write endlessly about how evil they are? Tell them they’re not allowed to believe what they do? WHY? WHY IN HELL WOULD I? WHAT WOULD IT GET ME?
So, yeah, you knew it was coming, guys, what the hell is this thing with Chick-fil-A? No, seriously. Have you gone off your collective minds?
I confess I have a soft spot for the chain though I’ve never eaten there. (IF we eat fast food we usually go for Carl’s Junior who gives you bunless burgers on request. Also, they have a positive policy of hiring people with mental disabilities, which I’d like to support.) The soft spot hinges solely on the dyslexic cows adjuring everyone to eat more chickin. It’s a clever campaign, and I like clever campaigns.
Then comes this storm in a teacup.
Several things you might not be aware of – first this is a rehash of an attempted storm a few months back. I know about this because my husband (the world’s least political person) got caught in the crossfire by innocently pointing out that what caused it was a FAKE pamphlet distributed at NYU saying that the company would only hire good Christians or whatever.
Second, this controversy was re-ignited with fake stuff. Again. The owner never said he was opposed to gay marriage (go here) – in fact the subject NEVER CAME UP. The journalist simply decided to insert that because… roses are red? Journalists are? Who knows.
“Fine, you say. But he’s a Christian activist and therefore against gay marriage. He gives money to anti-gay-marriage causes.”
Oh, no. Double plus ungood. How dare he commit a thought crime?
What? You didn’t realize that’s what you were going after? Look, in these circumstances it’s always good to turn it around and see what it would be like done by the other side.
People who are against gay marriage are free to boycott my books – I doubt they were reading them before anyway, given the number of gay characters I have (it’s not my fault, it’s what falls in the subconscious.) – In fact everyone is free to boycott – meaning not buy – my books. Judging by my sales figures any number of them exerts that prerogative. People who are against gay marriage can even post on facebook about what a poopy-head I am. Considering I’ve been hit by both sides of the “racist” field for ONE book, that wouldn’t even begin to upset me.
Now imagine the mayors of conservative towns coming out in force to say that trash that Sarah A. Hoyt writes is not allowed in their town because Sarah is a fag-lover. Doesn’t that make your skin crawl? Don’t you want to go “Hey, she’s allowed to believe whatever she wants to? This is America and we have the first amendment.” “BUT” they’ll say “She gives money to pro-gay-marriage causes,” they’ll say. (And before you strain trying to figure out which of the current loonies I’m giving money to — I’m not. For one, I don’t have money now. But when I was richer (and younger, and stupider) in the late 90s early 2000s, I gave a lot of money to the Libertarian Party who was, then, pushing marriage equality. Fair enough.) And all you can answer is “Why shouldn’t she if she believes it’s the best for society?”
Right, now turn it around again.
The owner of Chick-fil-A, who is a Southern Baptist, believes that homosexuality is a sin and gives money to anti-gay-marriage causes. Uh uh. Quick, stop the presses! Let’s make a federal case out of this.
In our democratic republic, a man whose religion opposes gay marriage gives money to prevent… gay marriage? Yeah. This totally justifies mayors of large cities coming out and grandstanding and saying this man’s business – which, btw, does not provide bits of fried gay person but bits of fried chicken – is not welcome there. It totally justifies calling the man a Nazi. Because, of course – Sarah nods sagely – he’s been advocating killing all gay people.
No? Because that’s what calling him a Nazi implies. (Mind you, even if he advocated it, it wouldn’t make him the moral equivalent of Hitler – it would just make you the moral equivalent of stupid – because he doesn’t have the armies or police force to enforce it. Our city has a KKK parade — or used to — which was a great occasion to get out with the anti-KKK signs, that’s all. And THOSE people believe in killing gays — and Jews and Catholics. BUT they don’t have the power to enforce it, so they’re just nuts we can make fun of.) There are places that kill gays – mostly in the Middle East. Cuba imprisons them (at least if they’re the passive partner, which means a guy who is raped can get imprisoned for life.)
Do I see any of you exert half that much rage and venom against those targets? No, of course not – because a) that would be politically incorrect and you nerds and geeks want more than anything to be part of the cool “in” crowd. b) because those are seriously bad dudes and that would be dangerous and you – all of you, girls, guys, gay and straight – are raging wussies who wouldn’t actually take on anyone you think might fight back and fight dirty.
What you should be asking yourself is “why Chick-fil-A”? The country is filled with businesses owned by Southern Baptists. I worked for one (small) way back in the day. It was a nice place to work because it closed on Sundays. The owners believed in that. Being where it was and when it was, they also probably believed that both Jews and Catholics were evil evil people. I still worked for them and didn’t implode in a puff of smoke. We sold cheap imports from third world countries, and the checks cleared which allowed me to buy groceries. They could believe whatever the hell they wanted to, I believed in groceries.
To my knowledge none of these businesses has been the target of not one but TWO disinformation campaigns – first the NYU thing, now this. So, what’s behind this? How the hell do I know? I don’t have the time to study the org chart for the company, so at least one of these might be wrong, but several reasons I could put forth would be: someone inside the company wants to oust the current owner; someone outside the company wants to damage it – competitor or disgruntled employee; or this is the equivalent of the “war on women” and someone wants to distract you from the economy and remind you some people out there don’t approve of gay marriage.
Of course, there’s another hypothesis. It’s Machiavellian, but not out of the question: one of the people who thinks gay marriage is dangerous because gays will become this little thought-enforcing army forcing even religions that disapprove of homosexuality to perform gay marriages has started this campaign to show how hysterical and unstable y’all are.
No? You don’t think so? You think this behavior is earning you friends?
Oh, yeah, fine, it’s a lot of fun to post nasty things about a fast food chain which can’t retaliate because businesses don’t do that. It’s a lot of fun to act all righteous and indignant against people who can’t do anything to you, personally. And kiss ins? I’m all for kiss ins. What the hell do you think that will do except shock some kiddies eating there? (And not many, not in 21st century America.)
What are you going to do for an encore? Go after every business in this country that’s owned by a religious person? Till – what? – everyone in the nation turns against you and buys a roll of duct tape to shut you up?
Guys, when you get to the point of getting on MY nerves, you’ve lost the plot.
Go ahead, shake your little fists, why don’t you? The people united shall never eat chick-a-filla. Man, those are logical and convincing arguments!
Never mind those strings moving you around and never, never look up to see who’s making you dance. Oooh, you’re so hip and cool now. Just a part of the “in” crowd.
Keep this up and in ten years the only place gays will have a role will be in comedy, as the hysterical, irrational comic relief.
As an heterosexual woman whose grandchild or great grandchild might very well be gay and for whom I would like the benefits of marriage, I’ll be over here crying my eyes out.
UPDATE: welcome Instapundit readers and thank you Glenn Reynolds for the link!
Update, Andrew Klavan is normally more socially conservative than I am (and certainly more vocal about his religion. While I’m religious and practice my religion and hold myself to my religion’s rules, I don’t think I have the right to argue public positions on that basis. Let me explain — I saw what religious rule did to Europe in the middle ages. You don’t want that. Even a good religion gets corrupted when given secular power) , yet his position is much like mine.
The only caveat would be that I don’t understand how he thinks he’d know if the “good gay people” shunned the nutbars. It’s not like the media would amplify their voices as they do those of “homosexual leaders” and “gay activists.” (In an unrelated note, I plan to start calling myself an Heterosexual Leader. If I were any more heterosexual/not married/NOT actively religious, there would be restraining orders up and down the land.)