Chick-Fil-A President Dan Cathy's recent comments in support of traditional marriage has sparked a predictably ridiculous debate over both freedom of speech and same sex marriage. Lost in the mud-slinging are several key points in relation to civil liberties. The easiest way to dissect this is in bullet points, so here we go.
1. Marriage is, at its core, a religious institution. It is a ceremonial union in the eyes of the Lord. The government should not be involved. One's chosen religion should dictate the terms of such a union. This means that it if 5 couples live on my block, they might have 5 concepts of marriage, and it's up to them and their Maker to decide if their union is legitimate. In any event, the government should not be involved at any level.
2. However, the government IS involved, and it views marriage as little more than a taxable legal contract between two people.
3. Since the government recognizes this taxable contract, it should fall under the protection of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Section 1 of the amendment clearly states that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Simply put, states cannot grant a privileged contract to one group of citizens while denying another.
4. Given points 2 and 3, if the government is going to be involved in marriage, it must recognize non-traditional unions.
Now, on to Cathy's comments themselves, and the implications of his opponent's reactions in relation to freedom of speech.
5. A reasonable person would not conclude that Dan Cathy said anything which would constitute hate speech. He spoke of his support for the institution of traditional marriage, and that's it. Those who compare this specific situation to anti-segregation demonstrations in the '60s betray a stunning lack of historical perspective. His restaurant does not discriminate in any way when it comes to serving the public. Gay or straight, you can enjoy his delicious chicken sandwiches without harassment of any kind.
6. In many cases, same-sex marriage advocates are their own worst enemy. Instead of recognizing differences in opinion and attempting to persuade the masses the way that I successfully did in bullet points 1-4, anyone who disagrees with their opinion is a small-minded bigot who wanders the Earth with blinders on spewing "hate speech". From a civil libertarian standpoint, my views are clear (see above), but the antics of between 75-90% of those who lobby for gay marriage galvanize me towards their opposition.
7. This did not have to become a First Amendment issue, but it absolutely became one. Boycotting Chick-Fil-A is absolutely within the rights of anyone who would do so. However, when elected politicians speak of banning a private business from large urban centers because its president fails to share their world view, we should ALL be outraged. That action would represent the absolute worst and most clear violation of First Amendment protections in recent history. Unfortunately, for many on the Left, the end always justifies means. They will absolutely revoke the most basic of civil liberties to suit their immediate needs. So, while campaigning for enforcement of the 14th Amendment, they would gladly deny the opposition the rights granted by the First.
In conclusion: I like fried chicken. You will only galvanize people against your cause by calling those with legitimate disagreements "bigots." He didn't say anything wrong. And gay marriage should be legal.
No comments:
Post a Comment