The Colonel was fried chicken until he had to move over a tad to accommodate Pollo Loco and gay men were queer but nothing special if they didn’t hit on you or act funny. That seemed to work all right until the aggressive homosexual-promotion orgs looking for a new tool to widen homosexual ‘rights’ (and hype their donations and government grants) settled on marriage, followed by the the CEO of Chick-Fil-A stating his opinion of that. His outfit has a lot of southern business (guns and Bibles, huh?) and hasn’t caught the Colonel, maybe he figures he can use the publicity.
Marriage is a win-win for gay promoters since it can be presented to the public as a ‘fairness’ issue and it attracts gays by offering joint filers’ tax breaks, Social Security enhancement and all the other perks of marriage without the need to produce and raise new citizens that is the rationale for providing marriage benefits. You’ll note that this historical fact is never mentioned since it shows the real reason gays want marriage and looks greedy rather than fair. The first thing to disappear in these debates is usually honesty.
Now let’s consider fairness: If depriving gays of marriage is unfair, what is unfair about it? They can enter into civil unions…a contract to provide everything provided by marriage except the government’s various subsidies, cant’ they? And if depriving folk of subsidies for procreation because they can’t procreate is unfair, isn’t it also unfair to single people? I am not smart enough for modern Progressive thinking, evidently.
The mayors of places like Boston, Chicago and New York don’t have my limitations of thought; no sooner had the chicken-fried CEO spouted than they roared into fulminations, recriminations and pledges to annihilate any Chick-Fil-A enterprise polluting their fair cities with its presence. These spoutings were extreme enough to justify sobriety testing and naturally, resulted in some almost immediate reverse gears.
The Big Shrinking Media showed the scene with the mayors as heroes until the internet got a word in about free speech and all that inconvenient type stuff. Then, the NYT cane out with: Chick-Fil-A and Social Change. The Gray Lady tried hard to sound fair and thoughtful and still manage to come up with using government to force social change is needful for necessary change. Change the Times supports being what’s necessary, of course. These days, we know what that will be before the Times tells us, right?
Off in the distance, people out in Utah and Idaho are stirring in fundamentalist Mormon circles, asking why their original polygamy isn’t legal? If gays can marry, why can’t sister wives? I’ll leave readers to work that out; it’s dinner time and I’m going out for some chicken.