Yet another stream
of consciousness essay, inspired by current events and some frustration. As humans we have come so far, and yet… we
still have so far to go.
One of my wife’s
Grandmother’s favorite idioms was, “They can’t shoot you for what you are
thinking.” Think about it for a moment,
what the moral of that statement is telling us.
By now, everyone has
heard about the angst, arguments, and diatribes brewing over the comment made
by the CEO of Chick fil A – David Cathy – regard is his views of gay
marriage. I have even participated in a few
discussions online, and it is very telling in my opinion.
Depending on whose
feed you are reading, we have anything from a complete and total intolerance of
Christian beliefs, to a constitutional violation of Mr. Cathy’s freedom of
religious or speech rights, to an unconstitutional restraint of trade
violation.
Before I start express
my views, I’d like to relate a couple of stories:
When my own attitudes toward homosexuality began to
moderate years ago, I was finally able to begin social relationships with
members of the gay community. Sitting
with a gay acquaintance one day, I asked him why he chose to be gay? His response was, “why do you choose to be
heterosexual?” His reply stumped me, and began a period of personal introspection. At the time, all I could say is that because
I am, to which he replied, “Exactly!”
Seems in the time
since this conversation I have learn, at least from the gay people that I know,
and contrary to most Christian claims, homosexuality is no more a choice, than
choosing to be heterosexual, male or female, or any of the other biological
components that make us who we are, and in fact there is mounting evidence that
homosexuality is biological.
The second story is much less pleasant. A decade ago I developed a friendship with a gay
couple, through one of my charitable endeavors.
This couple had been in a committed monogamous relationship for almost
20 years, even going so far as to have a palimony agreement drawn up. At the age of 48, Bob suffered a massive
stroke, and was hospitalized. Before
Frank was notified and could get to the hospital, Bob’s family left
instructions that no one but family was to be allow in to visit. This exiled Frank to the hallway outside of
Bob’s room and the waiting room, unable to see his friend and partner of almost
two decades. Sitting in that hospital waiting
every possible minute, hoping beyond hope that he might be allowed in, he told
me that he only saw family members at the hospital twice. About two weeks after suffering the stroke,
Bob passed away, never allow to have the love of his life with him. And… to throw salt in an already deep wound,
Frank was banned by the family from attending Bob’s memorial services and
funeral. Frank could even visit the
grave site until after the family had left.
That would have
never been permitted, if, like heterosexuals, Bob and Frank had the legal
protection of a marriage contract.
Okay, now let’s get
to some of the issues being argued as a result of this most recent Chick fil A
event:
First there are the
claims of tolerance and intolerance by both sides, and they are both right. How is that possible you ask? There seems that the mere definition of
tolerance is a dichotomy in today’s society.
tol·er·ance
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4. the
act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
And since that first
definition brings into view the term bigotry, let’s look and that definition as
well, since it has bearing on this essay:
big·ot·ry
1. stubborn
and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the
actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
It
would appear at first blush, based on these definitions at their face value,
that both sides of this argument are being intolerant and bigoted toward the
other side’s position. But, like so many
things in life, if you put things in context, the view changes. The Christian right, and I use Christian
right because I have many friend who are Christian who are moderate and don’t
feel this way, would like you to believe that the media, et al, are being
intolerant because they are speaking out against Mr. Cathy’s professed and
publicly acknowledged religious views and beliefs, and calling for boycotts of
products provided by his company. Yet,
they refuse to acknowledge that Mr. Cathy’s religious views and beliefs (and in
many cases, their own) are intolerant and bigoted. And they are so, not because they are religious,
but because they are support denying rights and legal protection to gay citizens,
guaranteed to all citizens, simply because of their religious beliefs. They want to and are actively pursuing civil
laws that will require everyone to live according to their religious belief. From the gay marriage support side, no one
that I know is trying to legislate that Christian fundamentalists must
associate with, or provide services to gay individuals, allow them to be
married in their institutions, or requiring these fundamentalists to change
their belief. So, from my point of view,
I believe it is clear who is being bigoted and intolerant, and I don’t expect
those individuals to agree with me. I
just hope that if you are one of those on the fence, you’ll take a moment to truly
think about which side you want to jump too.
And remember it was just under fifty years ago, that the federal
government had to step in, one hundreds after we fought one to worst wars in
our history to resolve the issue, and
acknowledge through legislation that Black Citizens of this country were not
3/4s of a citizen and or equal but separate.
Now for the funniest, ironic not haha,
conversation I’ve had on this issue, the constitutionality of the activities
being taken against Mr. Cathy and his beliefs.
I had on individual who at first claimed that Mr. Cathy’s constitutional
rights were being violated, and then claimed they were about to be violated. She claim a thorough knowledge of the
Constitution, and her contention was that because the mayors of Boston and
Chicago have stated that they would do anything in their power to prevent Chick
fil A from opening stores in their cities, they are or would be violating the
constitution because they weren’t adhering to their oath of office to uphold
the Constitution. REALLY?!? I asked a simple question in response to this
claim – twice, “please cite constitutional amendment and or clause being, or about
to be, violated?” At first I was told
that I should do the research, which would lead me to the conclusion that she
was correct. And finally, that she was
ending the discussion because I was twisting her words and it wasn’t a true and
honest discussion. The real truth of the
matter, which I couldn’t say at the time because it was another friend’s
thread, is that this person couldn’t find her ass with both hands and road map. Even with the conservative leaning of our
U.S. Supreme court, they wouldn’t bite on that one. I believe these mayors have push the edge of
reasonable government intervention with their comments, but, just for
enlightenment, let’s look at this possible constitutional issue.
I did a quick online search of the
online Constitution and can only find two references to commerce, neither of
which have applications to municipalities where Chick fil A might be concerned,
and no references to free trade, so unless someone would like to point me
elsewhere, not violation there. Now, I
know I making assumptions here, but, the only area I can think of that this
person might have been try to elude to as a constitutional violation would be
the 1st Amendment, and for clarity sake I have copied and pasted
that amendment direct for the online source:
Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress
of grievances.
In my discussions over the years, but
specifically more recently, there appears to be an interpretation of this
amendment to mean that you are free to practice your religion or speak your
mind without repercussion. That is not
true, and it never has been the case.
Just for a few of references; you cannot exercise your right to free
speech, by running into a crowded room (a theater being the most common
description) and yell FIRE!!! without warrant.
You will quite possibly face legal issues for doing so. There are other cases where free speech right
may face limited. Most everyone is aware
that righteous and pious members of Westboro Baptist Church have for sometime
protested the funerals of our fallen warriors because of their views on
homosexuality. Since the Supreme Court
agreed that this activity is protected under the 1st Amendment,
Congress recently passed legislation limiting the time these protests can
occur. It will be interesting to see
what the Court does with this legislation, but, I’d bet it get upheld. On passing laws restricting the free exercise
of religion, have we forgotten the laws against polygamy? A practice observed by early Mormons, and
still practiced by some renegade sects, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses have lost
about as many Supreme Court case as they have won regarding their free
exercise. And the Supreme has
continually maintain that free exercise of religion is not absolute. So, again, I can see nothing that either of
the mayors of Boston or Chicago have done or intend to do with regards to Chick
fil A business being prevented from conducting business in their cities as
having any constitutional issue.
It would seem to me that, like
religion, many find easier to believe and accept without challenge what we have
been taught or told, without actually checking for themselves.
And finally…
While the concept of marriage may have
some of its roots in religious concepts, it is long since removed for its simple
theological base. I know there are
probably some renegade sects who will marry a couple without a license, in
America you can be married without a religiously based service, but, you will
not be considered legally married without obtain a license from your local city
or county clerk. So in your society
today, at least here in America, a marriage is more so a legal contract between
two citizens, regardless of race, color, or religion… Only thing missing there is sex. While those fundamentalist Christian may want
to erroneously claim that Mr. Cathy’s constitutional rights are being
infringed, I think it is quite clear and evident, at least by my reading, that
the gay community’s 14th Amendment right of “equal protection of the
law” is most definitely being violated.
Read it for yourself:
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed
by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution
was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
Interestingly,
regardless of the coverage on T.V. that might seem to indicate differently,
most public survey today point to a majority of citizens (even a growing number
in the Christian communities) in this country who believe, as I do, that the
legal social contract that is marriage in this country should be extended to
all citizens of legal age. And, as far
as I can determine, no one I know believes that anyone should be punished for
believing that gay marriage is wrong, it can be wrong for them. But, making what they believe is wrong for
them illegal for everyone is wrong for everyone. To do otherwise and we are simply dressing up
the antiquated view and beliefs in new clothes, and using them to oppress a
class of people with whom we disagree.
I’ll close with
this: I opened with Grandma’s idiom, “They
can’t shoot you for what you are thinking,” and asked you to think about the
moral in it. Well have you?
Your comments or questions
are always welcome, and I have added an email address for those not wishing to comment
openly in this forum. Emails can be sent
to recoveringcathcon@gmail.com. However, please know that if this account is used to flood me with
trash and hate mail, I will shut it down.
