So, I gather that there has been some kind of controversey over recent comments by Chick-fil-A's president Dan Cathy on the subject of gay marraige. Here's what he said:
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit ... We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that...we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
This comment has provoked a range of reactions, from support by usual suspects such as Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum to condemnations and moves to ban Chick-fil-A restaurants from New York, Boston, and Chicago.
Rachel Held Evans has a response to the controversey on her blog, urging Christians who support gay and lesbian rights to act with respect toward those conservatives with whom they disagree, refraining from using language like "bigot" or "homophobe." Specifically, she writes:
But I beg you to please remember that not all Christians who speak out against gay marriage are bigots or homophobes, and calling them those names is as unjust as it is unkind. Many of the people I love most in my life fall into this “camp,” and most of them mean it when they say that they sincerely love their friends and relatives in the LGBT community and wish they knew of some way to hold to their convictions without hurting or insulting their neighbors. (emphasis in original)
There's alot to agree with in what Rachel writes, but I think this portion is worth commenting on, precisely because much of what you think of this position depends on what you think "bigotry" and "homophobia" entail. This is a point that Fred Clark at Slacktivist has made in the past, and its worth repeating: To the degree that you are on the side of those who have committed themselves to the exclusion and marginalization of LGBT folks within American society, you forfeit the right to be treated as one of the good guys. As Fred puts it:
Look, here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter if you think you’re a nice person. And it doesn’t matter if your tone, attitude, sentiments and facial expressions are all very sweet, kindly and sympathetic-seeming. If you’re opposing legal equality, then you don’t get to be nice. Opposing legal equality is not nice and it cannot be done nicely.
Nice is different than good, but opposing legal equality for others is neither. It’s simply unfair.
So be fair.
It’s probably best to be fair and also kind, but fairness is the important part. As long as you’re fair, no one else will really care whether or not you’re particularly kindlyabout it. But if you’re not fair, then kindness isn’t even a possibility.
So, to that degree, "bigot" and "homophobe" are perfectly legitimate terms to apply to Chick-fil-A and those who support the restaurant based on its support for marriage inequality. It may not be "nice" to use those terms, but it is wholly fair and appropriate. Rachel may well believe that many of these folks are nice people, and its true that the may act nice while in the process of practicing bigotry, but that doesn't make them any less bigots.
And, to be clear on this, the real issue with Chick-fil-A is, as Fred again notes, not simply that it's president is a bigot, but that it is, as an institution, actively supporting organizations that exist to promote the legal discrimination against gays and lesbians:
Yes, Dan Cathy recently reaffirmed his views and his stance. That’s old news. The newnews — the news that has led to calls for boycotts of Chik-fil-A — is that Cathy and his company are bankrolling political groups in an effort to deny other people the right to marry and to deny them the right not to be fired because of who they are.
This isn’t about Cathy’s “views” or his “stance” — his opinions or his words. His history of such comments may have prompted a hilarious drag-queen Wilson Phillips parody (NSFW, and also an ear-worm warning) but Cathy’s words alone did not prompt calls for a boycott.
Those came after it was learned that Chik-fil-A’s corporate foundation was supporting groups like the Family Research Council. The FRC is a political lobby (and also, according to the SPLC, a hate-group). Chik-fil-A’s support for the Family Research Council and it’s viciously anti-gay agenda is a political act. It is an act ofpower against others and a use of power to harm others.
It's hard, under that set of circumstances, to argue that there is nothing more than simply a matter of personal distaste at stake here. There is the use of company resources to promote legalized bigotry. Those who have decided that the proper response to this is either boycott or demonstration are well within the bounds of legitimate discourse. Indeed, on that front, I find the idea of showing up to Chick-fil-A in drag hilarously appropriate as a response. It's the actions of Chick-fil-A that deserve a response, not simply the odious opinions of its president.
So you either are or are not a bigoted homophobe based on your support of chick fil a's stated position. Got it.
But what if you support Chick-fil-a for a different reason? What if you're simply reacting against the I'm-a-tolerant-liberal-but-wish-you-would-just-die-already mentality that appears to be driving this debate? Anyone with a facebook account knows full well what I'm talking about. I occupy the apparently uncommon position of not really caring one way or the other on gay marriage. I don't think it's a right per se nor do I think it's a moral travesty should two men or two women decide to be married. I really just don't care. What I DO care about is Rahm Emmanuel and city aldermen using their authority to punish unsanctioned political speech. I DO care about otherwise rational Americans wishing death upon millions of their countrymen over a position that the POTUS himself held until three months ago. Apparently in the span of a couple of years every person in America is expected to completely reevaluate a definition of marriage that was understood for centuries and anyone failing to "evolve" (to quote the president)according to the officially sanctioned timeline DESERVES TO DIE!!! Not exaggerating here; DESERVES TO DIE - that is the exact sentiment articulated by more than a dozen facebook friends as well as any number of public figures.
The funny thing is I don't hear ANYTHING coming either from chick fil a or my 400 some off facebook friends that comes anywhere NEAR the vitriol and intolerance coming from the left. The real source of hatred in this debate is plainly obvious.
I'll end with a quote intended directly to the author of this piece "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye"
Posted by: Ben | July 31, 2012 at 01:39 PM
Hey Ben,
A few things occur: First, I think people can choose to boycott or not boycott Chick-fil-A on the basis of a purely subjective calculation of whether their desire to eat the food trumps their political position on the issue. There are lots of places that I might choose to boycott on the basis of their politics that I don't. You've got to pick your battles.
On the city-wide bans being promoted by Emmanuel, Menino, etc. I suspect that this kind of thing is both illegal and counter-productive. Boycotts of this nature are at their best when they're genuinely grass roots. It may be political posturing or it may be a genuine desire to take a stand, but either way, it's probably not the best approach.
Finally, I'm fairly certain that your dozen facebook friends aren't representative of leftwing opinion on the whole. And if you don't think "deserve to die" rhetoric on this issue bubbles up from the right, you're not paying attention. Indeed, I think that rhetoric is FAR more common on the right than it is on the left (and in some cases, it's not just rhetoric, as there are those who would be happy to make the death penalty for homosexual sex mandatory under U.S. law).
Posted by: Scott Paeth | July 31, 2012 at 01:53 PM
Scott, you're blindly naive to think it's so much more common on the right and here's why. Yes, Westboro baptist types exist and they may number in the hundreds of thousands across America. However, they are marginalized pariahs - there is zero mainstream acceptance of their ideology. Now you can brazen out the meaning of mainstream in an attempt to refute the assertion if you wish - so be it. But the people I've heard wish death upon chick fil a supporters were FAR from marginal. They are actually the opposite of marginal. Example, one was a noted journalist, another is a conductor for the Metropolitan Opera. Both happen to be FB friends and both had their comments wildly cheered by like minded liberals. In other words - that brand of hatred enjoys complete mainstream acceptance. I mean for goodness sake, my conductor friend works largely on the public dime and had no fear AT ALL of wishing death upon millions of Americans. He knows there will be no repercussions for his venom - HE KNOWS IT! And you do too.
Now, I will admit that there is an extra level of intensity when this kind of vitriol comes from the hard right. It's due to the legitimate fear that they might act on their rhetoric whereas we tend to assume that venom spewing hard-leftists are paper tigers who will talk but never act. I don't deny this perception. It's something like the difference between a growling Rottweiler and a barking Chihuahua. The thing is, I may fear the former more but being constantly surrounded by hundreds of the latter and unable to get away is a whole different kind of problem.
Posted by: Ben | July 31, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Uh huh. Well, of course why wouldn't I accept your completely evidence free and anecdotal reports of exchanges on Facebook as being a fully accurate representation of the mainstream of liberal thinking on the question of whether homophobes should be put to death.
Posted by: Scott Paeth | July 31, 2012 at 02:40 PM
Ben is not alone in his observations. You get enough anecdotal evidence going and it begins to look like a reality, which most fair-minded people know it is. You'd be foolish to discount it.
Also, the quote from Fred Clark as support for why it's okay to justify the labeling of all people that disagree with gay-marriage as bigots is another example of emotionally charged rhetoric as well as philosophically weak and sloppy thinking. The kind that never opens up conversations, but rather shuts it down. There is no free speech in Clarks world.
You had said:
"Indeed, I think that rhetoric is FAR more common on the right than it is on the left (and in some cases, it's not just rhetoric, as there are those who would be happy to make the death penalty for homosexual sex mandatory under U.S. law)."
This is hyperbole meant to incite and it's just plain dumb. Name one figure, public or private or on any Facebook account (other than Fred what's-his-name at Westboro Baptist) that is calling for the death penalty for homosexual sex. If these sentiments are "far more common on the right" as you suggest then prove it. You must have something other than anecdotal evidence don't you, since that is all that is valid?
God save us from the associate professors of the world.
Posted by: Chris | August 01, 2012 at 08:04 AM
Its funny, this blog doesn't usually get a lot of comments, though it does have its regular readers. But you start calling out bigots, and they get very eager to make their voices heard in your space. Funny that.
As for advocates for death of homosexuals (NB., It's funny how I'm not allowed to include the one person that EVERYONE knows does exactly this), here are some links:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-anti-gay-activist-to-run-iowa-campaign.php
“Difficulty in implementing Biblical law does not make non-Biblical penology just,” he argued. “But as we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative. Biblical law would recognize as a matter of justice that even if this law could be enforced today, homosexuals could not be prosecuted for something that was done before.” -- That's from a Ron Paul endorser in Iowa, someone whose endorsement the campaign bragged of.
And then there's this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57372796/uganda-anti-gay-death-penalty-bill-reintroduced/
As you might know if you've followed the story, Uganda's death to gays law has been supported (at least till the bad publicity started) by members of the organization called "The Family" which has hosted members of Congress in its house in Washington D.C. and which is the major sponsor of the National Prayer Breakfast every year in the city.
And that doesn't even bring me to the hundreds and thousands of acts of violence, up to and including murder, that takes places against gays, lesbians, and transgendered folks every year.
That you want to pretend this reality doesn't exist says a lot more about you than it does about me.
Posted by: Scott Paeth | August 01, 2012 at 08:17 AM
There may be a reason this blog doesn't get a lot of comments. It could be there's not much writing worth commenting on. I've posted here a grand total of 3 times (including this one) so you flatter yourself thinking that people are coming out of the woodwork to read and post against you.
Uganda? Of course everyone I know is upholding Uganda as that which best epitomizes good government and clear thinking. I was also just thinking since they really like forcible female circumcision there, then maybe that would be a good thing to have here as well? Come on!
Okay, so you managed to dig up some fourth hand Ron Paul lackey (endorser?) that has crazy views. I guess you got me. But I'd never heard of him. And I'll go out on a limb and state that the vast majority of people have never heard of him either. I don't pretend that the reality of violence against GLBTQ people isn't real, it is and it's wrong, so your accusation is another false one. But I repeat, equating a reluctance to change the definition of marriage with an advocacy of physical brutality against a given community is intellectually irresponsible (or deficient).
So Ben and I are now both established and demonstrable bigots according to you. I guess that settles it. Discussion over.
I was just passing through and stumbled upon this blog.
I think I'll just keep on passing.
Posted by: Chris | August 01, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Chris, really, you weren't pretending that the reality of violence against LGBT folks wasn't real? Because you wrote: Name one figure, public or private or on any Facebook account (other than Fred what's-his-name at Westboro Baptist) that is calling for the death penalty for homosexual sex." That sure sounds like pretending it doesn't exist to me.
As to whether you're a bigot? I don't know enough to say. All I know is that you seem to be willfully ignorant of the nature of violence aimed at gays and lesbians, and willing to downplay it by claiming that violent rhetoric against the perveyors of anti-gay rhetoric is a bigger problem.
By all means though, feel free to keep passing, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Posted by: Scott Paeth | August 01, 2012 at 01:01 PM
Chris moved the goalposts after you did what he asked. Typical behavior from the right.
Posted by: Andrew | August 18, 2012 at 09:27 AM