Those who know me would not be surprised that I am a
supporter of gay rights, nor would they be taken aback to learn that I am in
favor of same sex couples being accorded the same rights under civil law as
opposite gender couples to enjoy identical marriage rights and protections.
Notice that I specified that they should be allowed identical rights to the
civil institution of marriage and said nothing of religious sanctioning of the
practice one way or another. There are aspects
of marriage that are entirely within the boundaries of civil law, such
as property, inheritance, tax status and
decision-making prerogatives; there are also aspects that are strictly
religious, such as whether such a union
is more or less “sanctified” under Christian, Jewish or any other faith or even
whether it is allowed at all. I have no interest in interfering with any other
person’s religious practices on the subject,
but my personal view as a Christian is that granting all aspects of the
civil institution of marriage to same sex couples does nothing to endanger the
sanctity of my own heterosexual union; I and my spouse are the only persons
with any ability to damage that joining in any way. If someone else’s religious view allows for
the spiritual sanction of same sex marriage it likewise has no impact at all on
any of the civil law aspects of that institution.
There has been a lot of publicity lately surrounding the
public statements of Chick fil-A CEO Dan Cathy regarding his opposition on gay marriage and the fact that he apparently gives money to political
organizations that seek to bar its acceptance.
A number of prominent voices on the political left have made statements
critical of Cathy’s stance and have therefore stated that Chick fil -A’s values
are not in sync with certain
geographical areas and sectors of our society.
Some of those statements have come perilously close to indicating that
some persons in positions of civil authority might seek to discourage Cathy’s
company from locating in their necks of the woods based on his outspoken position.
As I consider myself to be a
principled liberal I cannot support any efforts to bring any economic harm
to Mr. Cathy by way of an organized
boycott of his company’s products.
Whereas Mr. Cathy and I disagree strongly on this subject, I would not
dream of attempting to punish him in any way for exercising his
God-given and Constitutionally protected right to speak his mind and follow his
conscience. I would instead say to Mr.
Cathy, as Voltaire is reputed to have said, “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend
to the death your right to say it.” I am
certain that I am not alone among the liberal community in this position.
What pains me the most in this controversy is that persons in
the gay community should know better than just about any others what it is like to be punished for
following their consciences. They have been beaten, arrested, fired from work
and denied nearly every facet of human decency at one time or another because
they followed the path they saw as what was right for themselves; how, then,
can it be justified to enforce a similar type of punishment on a person who
follows his own conscience in the same manner?
It might be different if Cathy were in any way discriminating against
gay employees in his business regardless of their relationship status because
then we will have gone beyond speech or political activism and into directly
harmful behavior. Now, if an individual
chooses as a matter of personal conscience to refrain from doing business with
Chick fil-A, that is one thing, but to attempt to use mass economic
intimidation to punish Mr. Cathy and his business for his private behavior is
about as hypocritical as it gets.
No comments:
Post a Comment