Foll-A
I like gay people and — let me be frank — hate fast food. But this nonsense about Chick-Fil-A underscores the reason I’ve been hesitant to indulge my natural libertarianism and plunk outright for gay marriage.
In general, I have no problem with marriage for gays, if it comes about legislatively rather than through judicial fiat. I’ve listened carefully to the arguments of several social conservatives of good will who feel that changing the age-old definition of marriage will weaken a principle pillar of liberty. I’m not convinced — not even convinced that the possibility of such a moral hazard is a compelling reason to keep people from doing whatever they bloody well want with their private lives. As for the ideas that being gay is unnatural or a sin per se — that is, a sin whether it does any earthly harm or not — I reject them outright. Homosexuality seems as much a part of nature as left-handedness and is probably much less annoying when using scissors. And if it is somehow offensive to God, that’s His business: I am specifically instructed to judge not in such matters and tend to my own manifold offenses.
But when activists and government officials feel justified in attempting obnoxious boycotts and illegal vendettas against a business like Chick-Fil-A merely because it puts forward traditional beliefs, I am reminded of the deep, vicious and steadfast intolerance of those who claim the mantle of tolerance. I begin to suspect — I do suspect — that the movement for gay marriage is nothing more than an assault on freedom of religion and freedom of expression by other means — yet another ploy of those who believe in an all-powerful state shepherding powerless individuals into leftist nirvana. Truly, I wish to deny my gay friends and colleagues nothing. But the right to express, exercise and live by your faith and conscience is far more essential to human liberty and dignity than the government’s official approval of your relationships. If what gay activists really want is the power to silence those who disapprove of them, then to hell with them.
I have never been able to see the problem with being gay and don’t know why some people find it repellent. What I find repellent are the hateful and intolerant radicals who wage war on people for their opinions. Wise gay people will throw these idiots overboard and make their case for acceptance with patience and reason to their fellow Americans. They are going to win this fight eventually, I think, but the method by which they win will matter to their future and the future of the country.
I agree with you. I think this is just a guise so that they can go after churches to sue them for discrimination…once again to further an anti-Christian agenda.
You certainly don’t see these groups picketing mosques or synagogues. Just Christian churches.
And like you, I don’t care about gay “marriage” civil unions whatever. But when stupid stuff happens like this it does harden my heart, when normally I couldn’t care less.
I agree with you in principle regarding a free society, which I someday dream of living in. However, I think whole propagation of the species (human, that is) argues for a stable family unit with one man and one woman. Many, many generations of humanity argue for its success.
You say, if God is against homosexuals, that’s “His business.” That is correct, However, it IS our business as well! Read 1 Peter 1:15-16, “But as He which has called you is Holy, so be ye Holy in ALL manner of conversation (lifestyle); Because it is written (Lev 11:44), Be ye Holy; for I am Holy.” We are to “dislike” what the Lord dislikes!
Secondly, regarding “judge not,” I wish people would read their bibles! Matthew 7:1 which says, “judge not” is in reference to verses 25-34 of the previous chapter (Chapter 6). The idea is, God may permit poverty to test His Child, but fellow Believers are not to err, a Job’s friends did, and believe the trial to be a judgment for secret sin.
False ‘doctrine’ (beliefs) are to be addressed. See 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Jesus rebuked the Pharisees of His day for their false teachings and wrong and wicked ways. We are to do the same as well. This must be done in love, and not in anger.
We are not t
It is in no way beneficial to the American people for them to allow their legal system to grant a very small portion of the population the ability to exclude the gender of their choice from a legal contract that was designed to include both.
It is an undeniable fact that gay relationships literally exclude a gender and are exclusionary in their nature. Therefore, gays inarguably disqualify themselves from eligibility for a license to marry by their own exclusionary practices. And to me, nothing says cognitive dissonance quite like screaming BIGOT! or HOMOPHOBE! while trying to shut a gender out of a legal contract that was established to be all inclusive to the genders.
When it comes to state licensed contract law of any type whatsoever, do Americans really want a scant minority of any variety to have the ability to tell the State “No, we won’t abide by your established requirement to be all inclusive. We are going to deal exclusively with our own kind.”?
Is this exclusionary form of preferential segregation something we want to wedge its way into our legal system? Forget the colorful barbs rabid activists fling toward any and all who oppose their lopsided proposal, if this were a racial issue of legality, it would already be clear who the bigots are.
I am one of those who believe homosexual activity is a sin. But I also believe that everyone sins and it is not my job to convince someone that any specific act is a sin. Homsexual activity is no greater or less than other sin.
I disagree with Mr Klavan that homosexuality is genetic, like left handedness. If it were, the percentage of homosexuals in the world would diminish with each genation, since they cannot procreate among themselves. And if they do procreate with someone, it would occur much less frequently than among heterosexuals.
If someone I work with happens to be gay, I would would rather not know about it. In the same way, I would rather not know about a co-worker’s habit of wife-swapping.
Long, long ago in a borough far, far away I worked as a summer intern for the City of New York. These were in the days when Ed Koch was known as Hizzoner. The political spoils system being what it was, Hizzoner stuffed all the city agencies with his cronies and their various idiot relations. Hizzoner being who he was, the ratio of homosexuals was significantly higher than the average found even in a city such as NYC. And it wasn’t a big deal. Sure, many were neurotic, highly dramatic and sometimes annoying but after all it was city government, what else would you expect. So all in all, my opinion of gays was overall positive. But over the course of the last thirty five years it has become increasingly clear that tolerance isn’t enough. They want their weird lifestyle sanctified and they don’t want a little thing like freedom of speech to stand in the way. So I’ve “evolved” in my thinking about them and now I stand against anything they are for. And basically I’m doing it strictly for spite.
Long live Chick-Fil-A!
This thing, this so called issue has been at such hyperbolic boiler plate for so long now, and (until the chick-filet revolt), seemed to be coming entirely from this sect of rabid radical gay activist leadership. And surely it is, but it’s built on ye old template of obama “racism” straw man. We end up lured into it, and whereas our chick-filet is a place for us of public assembly and silent protest on Wednesday, by Friday it’s the coloseo of bread and circuses. (Rahm Emanuel and Denino joining in from the box seats). The straw man is that we’ve all been pre-slandered with the epithet “haters” from the get go if we have our own individual opinion about it [that differs from] the party line straw man group denke of the hollywood gay mafia.
I’m willing to work to remove any remaining legal impediments to same sex partnerships, whatever they are, and I insist that we do it at the state level, in the legislatures. That takes more boring, unglamorous work than this tactic of national level media saturated brinksmanship that the gay mafia and/or the obama administration is so always prepared to do in their interminable doubling down. I’m particularly furious at the repetition of this wasteful expenditure of everyone’s political capital. Why should we trust these people to bargain or lobby in good faith if they cannot run a proper boycott, and one they are so careless and ill-advised to deploy?
I am sick of this self indulgent alinsky narcissism at the heart of democrat party “leadership” at every turn. Someone will have to find the middle ground on this one, and to communicate a way in which we can all settle down and find some middle ground. forward. Romney is good at this, and he has an opportunity to demonstrate the difference in his leadership style with the chicago model.
democrat party is a reactionary gaggle, pining and pretending they can jump start the old national political machine of the FDR glory days back in to bidness. They have miscalculated again, and are, as always, playing on borrowed time.
Shouldn’t their actions call into question your belief that homosexuality is natural, Andrew? For if homosexuality is natural there is no need to shut up those who disagree with the practice.
Sometimes you need to let reality be your guide and not fantasy.
“not even convinced that the possibility of such a moral hazard is a compelling reason to keep people from doing whatever they bloody well want with their private lives.”
You might want to rephrase this. Marriage is the public recognition of a relationship. Not a person’s private life.
For those of us not excited either way on gay “marriage,” the arrogant left turned it into a free speech issue and exposed their totalitarian bent. Now if Obama can’t find a way to cancel elections, his goose is cooked.
There isn’t a Chick-Fil-A in my state, so I’m going to their website and ordering something from their–I don’t remember what it’s called. Gift store? Anyway, they’ve got something like that.
” I begin to suspect–I do suspect–that the movement for gay marriage is nothing more than an assault on freedom of religion and freedom of expression by other means……”
Thank you for writing that.
When I was 25 and living in Madison, WI, I answered an ad for a room for rent in a house. The guy who ran the ad seemed nice enough. “I can live with him,” I thought. He had a couple other rooms, and I took one. Even after he told me he was gay. I made it clear I wasn’t, and that was that. I thought. I looked at him as sort of a sociological experiment: I could observe the homosexual lifestyle up close without actually participating in it. Generally we got along well the 6 months I lived there. And I learned a few things, some of them surprising to me. For one thing, I was completely open to the gay lifestyle- for others, not for me. When I left, I wasn’t so sure. For one thing, I found that most of my new friends had some twisted sexual episode in their past that was demonizing them. Usually it involved an episode of sexual abuse at an age where they were unable to defend themselves. My new roommate had been abused by his dentist at age 12. While this is undoubtedly not the case for all homosexual males, I don’t think one can say homosexuality is like left-handedness, unless you are left-handed because your right hand was mangled when you were 12. Another thing is that it is very disconcerting for a straight man to have to deal with a guy who wants to get into your pants. This eventually happened with my roommate. Men are oversexed, and need woman to act as a brake on their impulses. That brake is not present when two men get together. So, do I like gay people? Yes. They are unusually sensitve and creative, as a whole. Do I feel comfortable around them? Not usually. Because you know in the back of their mind they almost always have a desire for you that you will never have for them. Should they marry? By all means, if that is the way to insure inheritances at death. My guess is that the gay divorce rate will be higher than the straight divorce rate by at least a multiple of 2. Personally, I liked things the way they were- most people minded their own business and got on with their lives, straight or gay. Mark Steyn says that “the love that dare not speak its name” has become “the love that just will not shut up.” I’m with Steyn on this one.
Interesting read, thanks for sharing.
Wemedge,
I suspect almost all people–including some gay people– are secretly with Steyn on this one.
As a gay guy it fills me with impotent rage that the left is using gays as some new proletariat. You know, communists used actual grievances of the working classes as a justification for the revolution, and, of course, the working classes were none the better when the revolution came.
The left is portraying the gay marriage issue like this: if you don’t want gay marriage, you don’t like gay people (and probably are a hateful bigot). They are pushing for it as a kind of government endorsement of homosexuality. The problem is that when a democratic majority has the power to endorse something, it also has the power to condemn it. I don’t want that kind of power anywhere near me.
I couldn’t care less about the issue itself. I’ve never voted for anyone who said they would fight for gay rights. I don’t need a government-sponsored hate awareness campaign, I need more cops on the street in case some actual hateful bigot wants to cut up my tires.
Oh, and reading the comments I am once again reminded that I probably wouldn’t want to spend more than five minutes talking to most people who share my political views. It warms my heart though to know that there are people out there like you, Mr Klavan.
kacper said, “As a gay guy it fills me with impotent rage that the left is using gays as some new proletariat.” Actually if you go by percentages there are very few voting populations more left wing than homosexuals. So I don’t think the left is using them. I think they are them. As far as wanting to converse with those who espouse a conservative viewpoint, I think the LGBLTXYZ-industrial complex has evaporated whatever tolerance or goodwill ever existed among conservatives. So I don’t think outside of the libertarian contingent you’ll find much sympathy for the gay sensibilities.
God does seem to have very specific views about who we can sleep with. If I were God, I’m not sure I would have made the same list of commandments as He did, but then again, I wouldn’t have invented anything as mind-blowing and hilarious as sex. It’s His call. He also thought of kangaroos. He’s good at that kind of thing.
The problem today is that we blur the distinction between preference and identity. It used to be that homosexual meant someone who had homosexual sex. So when the Bible condemns homosexuals, it’s really condemning homosexual practice. The idea that a person is bound by what he wants is new. We all have appetites for things that are wrong, but we’re not obligated to act on them – really, civilization is based on the principle that we don’t act on them all.
(As an aside, the question of heredity vs. environment vs. choice becomes unimportant once you remember that we don’t have to act on every urge.)
Anyway, if you accept that we’re defined by our desires, then it’s tough to argue against gay marriage. The Christian mindset within conservatism rejects that. The libertarian mindset within conservatism lets people define themselves any way they want to. I think the most consistent libertarian position is to reject the idea of state marriage.
re: “I think the most consistent libertarian position is to reject the idea of state marriage.”
I would love to hear ( or read) thoughtful arguments for and against this position.
Marriage could be thought of as a Christian tradition, unrelated to and unprotected by the State. Perhaps, government could simply grant every individual the right to government-recognized partnerships, which would come with the same benefits/consequences for every individual/couple. Marriage stays marriage, but becomes unassociated with government.
Unfortunately for civilization, the traditional nuclear family (based on one man and one women producing and raising children while practicing and preaching Judeo-Christian values) appears to be a critical cornerstone underpinning society’s success (widespread freedom and prosperity). Unfortunately for readers and fellow commentators, time and space do not permit a careful thorough nuanced comparative analysis of the costs and benefits of the traditional family versus the costs and benefits of the “modern” (anything goes, including gay and single parents) family. Needless to say, leftists have always used any means necessary to attack and destroy Judeo-Christian values, regardless of consequences. Many of leftists’ good intentions seem to pave the road to hell.
Did anyone notice the free-for-all over a duplicate of this article on the main page?
—
I think Jeff stated it pretty well. Civil marriage is a type of state protection. The libertarian frowns on any state intervention. It makes more sense to me that a libertarian would reject all state recognition of marriage than that he’d promote state recognition of gay as well as straight marriage.
The modern leftist believes in the State – like “you shall have no other gods before the State” level belief. To him, state recognition means everything. All religions, all people, should take their queue from the state. So I can understand him wanting his form of marriage to be recognized by the state. I can’t understand a libertarian putting any emphasis on it, though.
Without bringing my religious beliefs into the issue, I’m persuaded that society has a stake in protecting the institution of marriage specifically for the combination of people most likely to produce children. While it’s true that no relationship is equal in all respects, the relationship of husband, wife, and children is very unequal, with decisions about wage-earning versus nurturing, not to mention the fact that children are defenseless, unintelligent, and have reduced legal rights. (I’m sure I could phrase that better, but you know what I mean. Child CEO Richie Rich is a fictional character.) This relationship, the standard family, needs special legal protection if it’s to continue. The family is uniquely equipped to produce children, and the development of the next generation is a social good worth protecting.
If anything, we need greater state protections for the family – tighter divorce laws, and tax rates low enough that a sole earner can raise a family. We don’t need to dilute the special protections that the family already has. And, lastly, there’s the philosophically-conservative argument to be made: when in doubt, don’t change anything.
Yeah well….
If I should think that homosexuality is wrong…that doesn’t make me a bad person….it just means that I have an opinion.
Andy Rooney
After personal smears, the Dems best hope is to inflame the culture wars.
Do you really think that the very clever Rahm Emmanuel — (and other Democrat Mayors) — didn’t “know” that his outrageous statement would raise a gigantic backlash?
There really isn’t a need to discuss whether these “lawmaker’s” attacks on free speech and religion are what they are. It’s obvious. It’s a distraction that should be shelved until after the election.
How many weeks will this “discussion” give the O a reprieve from shining light on his failures?
Let’s get back to — and keep the focus on — discussing the O’s destruction of our economy — his attack on our Constitution and values — and his ruination of our foreign relations, bringing our security to the brink by — encouraging — Iran to proceed full steam ahead with their Nukes.
Really Klaven, you don’t get the importance of the man/female coupling? You don’t recognize how European countries are paying couples to have children to in order to continue their national identities?
Until recently, I wondered how liberals looked the other way when Muslims spout their anti-gay liturgy yet attack Christians (look at the Boston mayor’s recent action). It is clear now that they both have one goal: the eradication of the Judeo-Christian culture. The one that prizes the one-woman/one-man union and their offspring.
It is unclear to me what benefits will be achieved by the gay community if they do achieve gay marriage. Most of the things that I have heard on the list can be handled contractually or by a will or a living will. One thing that it would affect is the application of the tax code, but I have not really heard the gay communitiy asking to pay the marriage penalty. In any case, if that was really the issue, it would not be difficult to change. The one thing that gay marriage does do, that cannot be done by other means, is to force others (e.g. employers, churchs, hospitals, insurance) to recognize they are married. Is it really the libertarian position that government should force people to do things? I would think the libertarian position on this should be to get government out of marriage entirely rather than to support gay marriage. If government does have a role in maintaining marriage and family, what is that role (maybe help the propagation of the species)? Does gay marriage really correspond to that role?