in the wake of this whole chick-fil-a debacle, the following blog post by Wayne Self has become particularly popular and widely circulated amongst supporters of gay marriage: http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288.
i have a few problems with this post - the main one being that he claims the whole thing has nothing to do with First Amendment rights...
"Let’s also agree that this isn’t about curtailing anyone’s rights under
First Amendment. The Constitution is a legal document. This is not a
legal argument. No one is arguing that Chik-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy should
be put in prison, or silenced, or censored by the government. This has
nothing to do with government censorship or government abridgment of
Freedom of Speech." (paragraph 5)
... which is simply not true. when the mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco started calling for a ban on Chick-Fil-A franchises in their cities, they made this about First Amendment rights. it didn't have to be, but sadly, it is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/jon-stewart-chick-fil-a-video_n_1736996.html (citing your sources is just more fun when it comes from the Daily Show).
but the part of Self's post i want to focus on in particular is this statement:
"This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about
it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member
of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this
issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT
let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him." (point #2)
the problem i have is not with the statement itself, because i actually think that he has a valid point here. his point (if i understand it correctly) is that, when human rights are on the line, we cannot and should not merely "agree to disagree". to do so would be a gross injustice to those in society whose rights are being denied them. i absolutely agree with this.
what makes me frustrated is the fact that this is the exact point Pro-Life activists have been trying to get across for years. that there is no "live and let live" on the abortion issue because there are individuals and corporations (not to mention government-sponsored programs) that are spending millions to very specifically NOT allow children to live. that the statement, "if you don't like abortion, don't get one" isn't going to cut it. why? for the same reason that Mr.Self says he cannot, in good conscience, simply agree to disagree on the gay marriage issue: because in both his case and the case of Pro-Life activists, to do so would be to turn a blind eye to a portion of society that we perceive as being oppressed and denied basic rights.
it depresses me that it took the gay marriage issue for this concept to suddenly make sense to so many people, when for years it has been the cry of those fighting to protect the unborn. the Pro-Life opposition has instead opted to assume that there's no way the Pro-Life movement could actually have anything to do with protecting children, which would actually be kind of understandable, choosing rather to assume (or to pretend) that it has everything to do with suppressing women's rights for no apparent reason.
there are anti-gay marriage activists who are just as bad. those who choose to assume that supporters of gay marriage couldn't possibly think they are actually promoting equal rights, which would actually be kind of understandable, but rather choose to assume (or pretend) that they're all God-hating perverts who are hell-bent on living in sin for no apparent reason are just as guilty.
i'm going to propose something ridiculous. what if, just what IF... we all chose to assume the best of one another? if you're Pro-Choice, can you at least agree that it's a lot more likely that your Pro-Life neighbors are genuinely interested in promoting the rights of the unborn, not in trying to stomp on the rights of women? if you're against gay marriage, can you at least agree that it's a lot more likely that your pro-gay marriage neighbors are genuinely interested in promoting the rights of homosexuals, not in trying to hate on God?
regardless of where you stand on either issue, can we all agree that we're using the same argument to promote our cause, because ultimately, we are all trying do the same thing: to stand up for those who need us?
*disclaimer: i should hope this would be obvious, but i am in no way claiming that all pro-abortion activists or all anti-gay marriage activists assume the worst of their opposition in the way i described above. there are plenty of you out there who are very respectful in the way you disagree with one another, and i applaud you for that.
