Chick-Fil-A Followup

A quick followup to yesterday’s post:

Hopefully, Dear Reader, you understood that this idea of “fighting hatred” by buying a bag of Oreos or eating a burrito was quite obviously Deliberate Facetiousness In The Service Of Humor.

And I’m not advocating boycotts, either. I don’t think they work. Furthermore, you’re only responsible for your own choices and you shouldn’t sign on to further someone else’s agendas. I also feel sorry for Chick-Fil-A franchisees. Most of them are neutral on the issue of same-sex marriage at minimum. It seems unfair that they now have to deal with blowback on an issue that has nothing to do with their ability to make and serve hot sandwiches. They have plenty of reason to be pretty damned pissed off at the actions of the company’s COO.


The LGBT community has to deal with real hatred. Yup, the country has become far more accepting of nontraditional couples. But even though the majority of the populace accepts same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage (if polls can be believed), many such couples don’t dare hold hands when they walk down the street, except when they’re in places that are known to be LGBT-friendly. They’ve been forced to deal with pinheaded ignorance, open hostility, and the threat of violence all their lives. They have no idea if the person coming up towards them on the sidewalk is going to react to the sight of two men hugging by spitting on them…or by doing far, far worse. That’s the reality.

People like me can’t appreciate how fundamental that kind of disapproval is. I’m not the only straight person who’s been chased down a street by people shouting the word “faggot” at me and intending to do me bodily harm. But even during my worst month in junior high, I never ever for even a minute worried that maybe someone I don’t even know will take one look at me and immediately want to kick my ass just on principle. That’s the difference.

Secondly, the COO of Chick-Fil-A doesn’t get a free pass just because his actions and opinions are grounded in his religious beliefs.

But let’s rewind a bit. It’s important to point out that he actually doesn’t need to justify his beliefs at all. Not to me, not to Chick-Fil-A customers, not to anybody. He has every right to his opinion.

The problem isn’t that he has an unpopular opinion. The problem isn’t even that it’s an opinion that I happen to think is indefensible. The problem is that he’s actively trying to restrict other people’s rights. And that’s why this man needs to defend his choices.

The marriage of two gents or two ladies doesn’t affect his life one tiny bit. But: the millions of dollars he spends to ban same-sex marriage affects millions of lives directly. It hurts innocent people immensely.

Not having a legally-recognized relationship with your life partner can have devastating consequences during a medical emergency, during longterm care, and after death. The law protects spouses and ensures that they have rights in those situations, despite what their partners’ blood relatives might have to say. In many cases, same-sex partners are non-entities in the eyes of the state.

That’s the horrible state of affairs that the COO of Chick-Fil-A wishes to strengthen, extend, and perpetuate. While he and I are debating the subtle points about the definition of the word “family,” people out there are suffering, for real. For same-sex couples, this issue is anything but an abstract problem.

I’m going to avoid the larger issue of why someone doesn’t want to acknowledge a same-sex marriage. As you might guess, my opinions on that are strong and clear, but it’s a distraction from the central issue: if legalizing something won’t directly or indirectly affect your life one tiny bit, and making it illegal hurts people, then that’s the end of the discussion.

In truth, I grudgingly respect the COO of Chick-Fil-A for coming out and standing behind his beliefs. I don’t hate this man. How can I? I’ve never met him. But I’m certain that he’s wrong. And if I never want to step foot in a Chick-Fil-A, it’s not because I want to punish him for his beliefs. It’s only because I can’t see that brand and that logo without thinking about something nasty that will interfere with my enjoyment of a fast-food sandwich.

[Edited to add: BE POLITE in the comments, please. Make it about ideas and issues, not about personalities.]

99 thoughts on “Chick-Fil-A Followup

  1. Dave

    First marriage is not a right. Sorry. Second, gay people can legally marry the the exact same people I can marry. I can legally marry anyone I want of the opposite sex. Gay people can do the same. EXACT same rights.

    While I am 100% against gay marriage, I am 100% for civil unions. Same legal protections. And while I am 100% against gay marriage, I am 100% for STATES voting on it on a state by state basis because gay marriage is a 100% state’s right Constitution issue.

    What I am against is cowards labeling everyone against gay marriage as bigots or homophobes and trying to embarrass and shame certain people into doing what the cowards want. Funny how people completely ignore that DOMA was passed by a Democrat Senate and signed by a Democrat President. Everyone ignores that. Everyone ignores that President Obama stated support for DOMA for years until his position conveniently “evolved” solely for political reasons. Funny how California is the liberal Mecca of the entire United States and everyone on the left conveniently ignores that they rejected gay marriage as well. And psst, it was rejected overwhelmingly by those “bigoted” block voters. Funny how no one calls them bigoted in the press.

    One last thing… Hey Andy, I’m sorry if you were bullied in school. GET OVER IT. EVERYONE was bullied in high school and I’ll let you in on a little secret, everyone bullied people in school as well. Even you. Why do you think the bigger people bullied others? They learned how to bully becasue they were bullied. I’ll tell you another secret. No one called you a “faggot” because they thought you were gay. They called you a faggot because they thought it was a cool word and evoked a reaction. No one then had any idea of what it meant.

  2. Tony Taylor

    Any sufficiently loving relationship is indistinguishable from marriage.
    So glad I live in the UK where it seems that we cope well with diversity, Saturday night on TV is something like a Gay Pride march. I watched Fox News on satellite the other day and for the first time was frightened by what could become of America. What with Rush riffing on the name of the villain in the new Batman movie and other conservative talk shows finding Hitler in everything, the rest of the world could be forgiven for being a bit uneasy.
    The amount of anti French sentiment on g+ aroused by the cyber glasses case is unpleasant to say the least. I speak as a Brit and even though I know the French haven’t forgiven us for agincourt

  3. Bill

    Regarding Marriage, I think the bars to entry needs to be raised rather than lowered, even for straights.

  4. crucialwax

    Why is ‘marriage’ such a sacred word? I’m willing to wager that marriage existed before most, if not all, religions.

    We should probably all keep our noses out of each others families.

  5. Todd

    Dave got so worked up researching Republican talking points that he forgot to read Andy’s article. The issue isn’t whether marriage is a “right” (something you contradicted yourself on in the first three sentences), but the rights that are afforded married couples. These rights can be granted through civil unions, but the broader issue that Andy raises of hatred and bigotry speaks to the second-class nature of being a homosexual in this country…which civil unions only perpetuate. Irregardless, times change and the arc of history certainly does bend toward justice…eventually.

  6. Ian

    Andy, thank you for this essay. I don’t have a comment on the substantive portions (on which I overwhelmingly agree with you), just a minor point about boycotts.

    Boycotts don’t work (generally) if you think about them in terms of putting economic pressure on people or companies with whom you disagree, but they do work from the standpoint of making ethical choices about your economic decisions. For example, your decision to avoid Chick-Fil-A probably will not have any measurable impact on their financial results, but it does matter that you have thought through where you want to spend your money and what positions you want to support.

    Dave, I had one comment for you as well. The marriage equality movement uses the term ‘marriage’ to refer to civil marriage, not the religious institution. Civil marriage is essentially a partnership between two people which conferrs certain rights regarding taxation, heritability of property and limited immunity from implicating the other party in criminal proceedings, all at the federal level. DOMA essentially restricts who can enter into these partnerships based on gender.

    We would not tolerate a federal law which (for example) prohibited corporations with only male directors. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection, which must include the right to join these federally sanctioned partnerships with somene else of the same gender. Similarly the full faith and credit clause requires all states to recognize partnerships/marriages which are valid in any one state.

    You say that you are in favor of civil unions with the same rights as marriages. Creating these would require much more work (including multiple constitutional amendments) than just realizing that a marriage IS a civil partnership.

  7. Craig

    Civil Marriage v. Religious Marriage is a distinction I like. As an example, the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize marriages outside the church as sacramental in the way that marriages inside the church are, but they don’t try to restrict them.

    Unless we start forcing religious institutions to perform their ceremonies against their own beliefs, I’m not sure why we fight over this. I don’t think a Catholic priest should have to marry any couple he doesn’t think meet the Church’s standard for being prepared for marriage, no matter what that standard is. Nor should a Muslim or, God forbid, a Scientologist. But neither, then, should any of these religions worry or attempt to restrict a legal civil arrangement, and in most parts of the world, that arrangement is called marriage.

    The rule here seems simple. You don’t interfere with my rights (to “marry” whom I want) and I won’t interfere with your rights (to “perform marriage in your church” for whomever you want).

    Also, great point Andy, regarding franchise owners. They will pay the price, although judging from the lines at the drive through here, that price ain’t too high.

  8. Craig

    To clarify, when I say that the Catholic Church doesn’t try to restrict who can get married outside the Church, I obviously refer to heterosexuals. I don’t think the Church should oppose homosexual marriage outside the Church, but it does. That’s my point.

  9. Josh

    Dave, as a gay man in america, I have one thing to say to you. Separate Water Fountains. Colored there, Whites there. Yup, everyone can get water, therefore it’s not discrimination right? Right?!

    Yeah WRONG. Gay people do NOT have the same abilities as you do. They cannot Marry the one they love. If you cannot see that MAKING a distinction is discrimination than you are blind or fooling yourself. And I’m sorry for you.

  10. JD

    Dave, I reject your distinction between “Marriage” and “Civil Union”. If it has the same meaning with the same results, then why insist on different words? Maybe it is you that needs to get over it rather than trying to perpetuate your outdated value systemand retains at least some second-class-citizen status.

    Andy’s point is that gay marriage doesn’t actually hurt anyone and denying it does actually hurt people. You need to make your case why it is, and keep the slippery slope arguments out of it, that’s a fallacy of logic.

    I also reject your assertion that everyone bullies. Just because you did (your argument pretty much admits it) doesn’t mean that everyone else did.

  11. minimalist

    Marriage is a first and foremost a legal contract between two people. The idea that marriage is controlled by the church is incorrect. The state ALLOWS churches to perform marriages not the other way around. The state even allows churches to discriminate as they see fit (not remarrying divorced people, not marrying mixed race couples, not marrying people of differing faiths, etc). None of this would change by allowing gay people to have a civil marriage. But those churches can not “marry” anyone that the law says they can not marry. If marriage were controlled by religious belief then gay people would already be getting married. There are plenty of faiths that perform same sex commitment ceremonies.

    Gay people don’t want to force churches to marry them. If some churches do want to marry us then all the better. But all we really want the right to go to our courthouse and be married by a justice of the peace. No supernatural power required.

  12. Ihnatko Post author

    Dave – First, I’ve un-approved comments that seemed to be attacking you directly. I don’t go for that sort of thing.

    Second, I was pointing out the difference between an isolated incident of being attacked and living every day with the knowledge that there’s a significant percentage of people among the general population who want to kick your ass just because of who you are.

  13. David K.

    Dave, what you fail to realize is that bigotry is not a political issue. It has nothing to do with Democrats, Republicans, or any other party. It is a basic human decency issue. We humans have a long history of establishing laws and institutions, such as marriage. When we take it a step further, and establish laws that are explicitly designed to exclude people from taking advantage of the institutions we establish, that is discriminatory. It is political “bullying” that has no place among people who share a universal respect for their fellow human beings. You, sir, are a discriminating bigot because you do not support the right of your fellow humans to afford themselves the benefits of the institution of marriage based on who they choose to sleep with. And don’t try to convince me that the anti-gay movement is based on anything other than a prehistoric view of human sexuality.

    It is time for all of us to grow up and let each other live our lives freely.

  14. Jeffery Smith

    I love Chik-Fil-A. I mean, I can boycott Walmart based on principle, but Chik-Fil-A is a hard sell. If they supported the KKK, I’d probably just figure out a way to hide my blackness just for lunch time. Then I’d immediately donate double the amount spent on lunch to the NAACP, just to avoid that post-lunch buyer’s remorse feeling.

    Back to gay marriage. I’m a Christian. My bible says gay marriage is wrong. I’m also American. My constitution says that it doesn’t give a damn what my bible says. I’ve yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn’t involve the bible. (I should say ‘reasonable’ argument. Hurricanes got a bum rap)

    At the same time, I do believe that marriage is a religious institution, co-opted by secular society. So why not eliminate marriage altogether in the secular world? Why not have everyone get a civil-union with the same rights regardless of partner configuration. Leave marriage to as an act that is recognized by the church, but has little purpose outside of religious institutions. Churches already have organizational structures that have no real purpose outside of the church. (I’m looking at you Deacon Francis)

    I’ve often had this thought and haven’t had anyone suggest why it wouldn’t/couldn’t work? (Other than secular society ‘conceding’ to those evil churches that run soup kitchens and care services for the poor and elderly)

  15. Marc

    Gay people and straight people do have exactly the same rights to marry people of the opposite sex.

    Just like when black people and white people had the same rights to only marry within their race. That was totally legitimate and okay, right?

    No? Then why is this okay?

    If it quacks like a duck…

  16. Jay

    Government shouldn’t be prohibiting or promoting marriage in any way. When you marry under the auspices of a state license, you are inserting the state’s interests into your private relationship. They encourage this by taking away fundamental rights from everyone, and then grudgingly redistributing those rights to couples who have their papers in order. It’s social engineering, and actual conservatives would vehemently oppose it.

  17. Graham

    While we all love and appreciate you Andy you are wrong on this. Tolerance is a two way street, religious bigotry is just as bad as any other.

    If anyone wants to claim their is more intolerance towards gay people than religious ones then you are clearly badly placed to judge.

  18. Kelli

    Dave, marriage between same-sex partners is performed in many religions, including many denominations of Christianity. And as long as *any* marriage between consenting adults is recognized by the federal government for whatever purpose, whether considered as a ‘right’ or merely a privilege, then it is discrimination to refuse to recognize any other marriage between consenting adults.

  19. minimalist

    “Government shouldn’t be prohibiting or promoting marriage in any way.”

    Ah yes, the government-should-get-out-of-everything libertarian argument. Funny how often hear it come out of the mouths straight men who happen to be married. How convenient for them.

    Until you can convince the hundreds of millions of married Americans to give up all the legal rights and protections of marriage excuse me for thinking these arguments just a bit glib. Gay people are down on the streets fighting for legal protections for our families. We need those protections now…. not in some mythical libertarian future.

  20. Jack Weems

    Personally I wish we could just drop marriage as a legal term all together and let contracts handle all the legalities we now handle with marriage. Then neither side could say their moral view is recognized by law. I think that is is why this is such a heated debate because no matter which side wins one side’s moral view will have the force of law.

  21. Rob

    I read a blog post some time ago by a gay man who stated that he was in a category of gay men who aren’t interested in marriage but who enjoy the kerfuffle over it. A thumb in the eye of the breeders, so to speak.

  22. Jay

    Religious believers have the option to abandon any organization that tolerates hatred or abuse or homophobia or misogyny or corruption; it’s hardly bigotry to expect them to exercise that option nor to be appalled when they don’t.

  23. minimalist

    “Personally I wish we could just drop marriage as a legal term all together and let contracts handle all the legalities we now handle with marriage”

    The problem is that the word “marriage” is written into the tens of thousands of federal, state and local laws regarding those legal contracts. Changing that many laws is impractical. it would be easier to simply include same sex couple into the wording of what defines “marriage”.

    Maybe religious people should come up with a different term if they find civil marriage to fall below their standards. I doubt any of them would marry an atheist in their church but that doesn’t mean they have the right to forbid them from civil marriage at a courthouse.

  24. Nat Gertler

    If marriage is not a right, then one needs to inform the Supreme Court of that; they have ruled repeatedly that it is.

    And to say that a gay person has the same right to marriage as you do, to marry someone of the opposite sex, is like saying that the Christian and the Muslim have the same freedom of religion in a strict Muslim country – the freedom to worship Allah with all one’s heart and soul. It’s a weak sense of “right”.

    Leaving marriage to the churches buys into an inaccurate assumption that it was a religious practice to begin with. It was not; it was a practical practice, which religion then involved itself in (much as it involves itself in birth and dying, and yet those predate it.) And the involvement is more recent than most assume; the Catholic Church did not involve itself in the rites of marriage for its common members for most of its existence.

    I’ve long had a certain respect for Chick-Fil-A, in their choice to make decisions -for themselves- which cost them money but stuck to their beliefs (i.e., the closed on Sunday), and besides, I liked their food. But while their chicken sandwiches are good, I’ve not bought one in years… because they aren’t special-rights-for-straight-people good.

  25. BackScatter

    @Graham – Are you claiming that Christians are really the persecuted minority in this country?

  26. Daniel

    Wow, this conversation developed more than I expected after my little comment yesterday.

    Not that much of what has been said isn’t valid, but the point I think we need to come back to again is not, “who is right and who is wrong?”, it’s “can we just learn to live with each other without demonizing each other?”

    Tolerance used to mean: I think I’m right, I think you’re wrong, and that’s ok, let’s go have a beer.

    Now, that’s been redefined by some. I no longer have the option to have an honest disagreement. I think I’m right, I think you’re wrong, and that makes me intolerant, and you must now demonize me as the intolerant hater that I am.

    I just want to go have a beer…

  27. Gregg

    @Andy – Wow – thanks for the posting. Glad to have you as an ally. And you thought the issue of reversing default scrolling directions in Lion brought up alot of discussion!

  28. DDA

    Kelli says, “And as long as *any* marriage between consenting adults is recognized by the federal government for whatever purpose, whether considered as a ‘right’ or merely a privilege, then it is discrimination to refuse to recognize any other marriage between consenting adults.”

    So, you’re supporting allow me to marry my first cousin. Or my sister? Seems a tad odd.

    I agree with Dave; this isn’t about restricting rights since the ability to marry someone isn’t a right. I’ll also point out that few same-sex marriage proponents care about *marriage*; they care about the “rights and responsibilities” and legal aspects of civil marriage. If nothing else, they should be honest about what they really want.

  29. JD

    “So, you’re supporting allow me to marry my first cousin. Or my sister? Seems a tad odd.”

    I doubt that was intended, but I’ll note that every state that allows cousin marriage passed anti-gay marriage laws.

    With cousin marriage, a social ill is provable, a markedly higher rate of genetic defects in offspring. With gay marriage, the social ills are alleged and not provable, generally specious at best.

  30. Bill

    So you (any of you) want to apply the word “marriage”, thereby redefining the term, to a union that does not meet its definition? And all because changing all of “the tens of thousands” of laws would be too inconvenient?

    Well, gosh, if one can redefine age-old terms to suit one’s own sociopolitical agenda, then what’s next? Those individuals who support bestial relationships can then redefine a goat, sheep or animal of their choice to have the same definition as a human being so as to consider that union to also be a “marriage”? It’d make PETA happy.

    Perhaps a man can define himself as a pregnant woman so as to better receive the benefits of maternity leave. Or the stereotypical old lady can declare her toy dog to be her child and legal heir — and then demand that “child” be admitted into public school. A man could also tell their auto insurance provider that because they legally claim their gender to be female instead of male that they demand the lower premium rates women enjoy.

    Personally, I’d like to redefine the common weekend to include Mondays and Fridays.

    It can get even more absurd once you open the floodgates.

    I guess I don’t understand why certain people feel the need to fight against reality and to use common well-established words and their concepts to try to redefine them to their own special interests. I think, in this particular case, everyone has lost sight of just what the word marriage means, how it came into being (both as a religious as well as social union) and for what purpose it serves in human society. Likewise we are also forgetting that the state and its recognition (or not) of marriage came later — and its interest in that contract is merely tacked on to the original purpose. Government has insinuated itself into managing every form of contract it can get away with — not not all contracts are equal, nor should they be, because people are different. (And equal protection does not equate to equal outcome, for the same reason.) Justice needs to be blind, but not stupid.

  31. JD

    Bill, slippery slope fallacy.

    Meanings of words change over time. Also, the concept of marriage has changed over time too. It used to mean a property transfer. A man trades beasts of burden for ownership of a woman.

  32. minimalist

    “So you (any of you) want to apply the word “marriage”, thereby redefining the term, to a union that does not meet its definition?”

    You and your church can call it whatever you want but the law has a very specific definition of “marriage”. If you want to take back whatever original meaning you think it once had, knock yourself out. Trade a goat for your daughters. Get with your wife’s sister after she dies. But like it or not the law defines what constitutes legal “marriage” in the US. And until all the people whining about how marriage has been corrupted by the government are willing to give up their own legal unions then all that talk is cheap.

    Its very simple, if straight people get to provide legal protections for their families via marriage, so should gay people.

  33. Allen

    Hey Andy! I just wanted to comment on one thing before moving on to the larger topic at hand. I would venture to say that most franchisees of Chick-Fil-A understood their overtly conservative christian beliefs when they got into the business. I could be wrong. It’s already happened several times today. Now on to the bigger issue. I, as a christian believe that homosexuality is a sin as stated in the bible… I also believe that homosexuality is just as much a sin as me mistreating my wife or adding an extra thirty minutes on to my time at work. So after stating that, I myself have no “right” to condemn anyone because I am just as condemned as everyone else outside of Christ. I’m taught in the bible to love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. Also to love my neighbor (everyone) as myself. Currently I find myself in a quandry when dealing with the issue of marriage from the christian perspective because “christians” display the same divorce rate as professing non-chriatians. Because of that we “christians” don’t have a very good leg to stand on when we try to debate marriage whether it be opposit-sex, same-sex or otherwise. Obviously as a group we’re not that concerned with the sanctity of marriage. The only person that I really care recognizes my marriage is God. To me the only good solution is for all of government to not recognize marriage in any form. By the way, could we all please admit that there are people at the extremes of both of these sides and just ignore them.

  34. Rebecca

    It’s the very people who want to reduce the powers of government in their lives who are trying to restrict others from doing something that has nothing whatsoever to do with them. As Andy pointed out, letting same sex couples have the legal rights that come with marriage doesn’t hurt anyone. NOT allowing those couples to have those rights causes a great deal of suffering.

    But then, I have never seen anything less like Christ’s teachings of love, compassion and tolerance than the behavior and opinions of conservative Christians.

  35. minimalist

    “To me the only good solution is for all of government to not recognize marriage in any form”

    Good luck trying to convince a hundred million straight Americans to give up the legal rights and privileges that come with marriage @Allen. And in the meantime, you and your wife still have access to those marriage perks to protect your family while gay people do not.

    We need a workable solution, not pie in the sky ideologies.

  36. Bill

    ‘But like it or not the law defines what constitutes legal “marriage” in the US.’

    So the Law should be the sole arbiter on how something should be defined, as far as you’re concerned? So then we can assume you have no problem whatsoever with DOMA, right?

  37. Chuck Jordan

    I really have to wonder how Bill and people like him would feel if, any time he mentioned his wife, he was immediately barraged with comments about bestiality and incest. Or even if he was told that his marriage was simply for the purpose of procreation, and all of the business about love, honor, devotion, and commitment, were meaningless ritual.

    And then I have to wonder how he’d feel if he objected to his relationship being lumped in with bestiality, incest, or pedophilia, and he was told to calm down. To stop getting so upset, because people are just having a rational, civil discussion about whether he’s fit to be married. There’s no need to make it PERSONAL, after all.

  38. laci


    Contrary to public opinion, gay people are real, actual human beings. I’m not sure if you’ve been on Earth long, but human beings have various needs in order to survive and prosper. In the context of a civil society, whether for better or for worse, this typically means that an overarching public establishment makes a variety of provisions for human beings to achieve said survival and prosperity (btw, this is neither a pro- nor anti-government comment). When this public establishment elects to marginalize members of its populace by applying antiquated, fallacious reasoning to prohibit this marginalized segment of thepopulace

  39. Bill

    JD, sometimes the slippery slope is not a fallacy, but that’s not my point. The point is to demonstrate the absurdity in redefining terms only to serve special interests, by presenting equally absurd redfinitions. Orwell warned of this.

  40. minimalist

    “So the Law should be the sole arbiter on how something should be defined, as far as you’re concerned?”

    Saying something is a civic matter does not mean all laws are just. Unjust laws get passed everyday (and rightly knocked down by judges). But marriage is still defined by the state. And the state is beholden to craft laws that give equal rights to all of its citizens, not just the ones in the majority.

  41. minimalist

    “redefining terms only to serve special interests, by presenting equally absurd redfinitions.”

    The term “marriage” has been under the control of the state for hundreds of years. There is nothing to redefine. it is first and foremost a civic institution. Your priest may marry you but you aren’t really married in the eyes of the law until the papers are filed with the courthouse. if you want to give up the legal definition feel free but you don;t get to summon ancient definitions of marriage when the modern definition has been firmly established.

  42. laci

    …sorry, I accidentally hit publish…..

    ….it is entirely reasonable to re-consider the terminology and definitions of the institution’s Faculties to include all humans in the provision of beneficial human services. One simply does not suggest that homosexual humans receiving civil services equal to heterosexual humans (FACT: homosexuals have the same evertday needs as heterosexuals) is the hypothetical equivalent to a man claiming he is a pregnant woman to receive benefits (FACT: no male is a pregnant female) or a dog being registered in a public school (FACT: no dog is a human child, and whaaat?). Were you trying to be postmodern or post-structuralist about names? Or what? How was that suppised to be a passable comment?

  43. Bill

    FACT: No homosexual couple is a heterosexual couple. They’re mutually exclusive. So you too agree with DOMUS?

  44. Dave (different Dave)

    @Nat Gertler: Wonderful comment. Most people don’t realize that Marriage is a right, a “basic civil right of man”.

    For someone claiming to find importance in States Rights, he sure misses on that one. Perhaps he needs to read up on States Rights and Loving v Virginia.

Comments are closed.