The implications of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day


There has been much gloom in the progressive community at what seemed like an overwhelming show of support for Chick-fil-A. In response to the call for people to go there and buy food on August 1 to show their support for the company president’s anti-gay attitude, there were long lines of people waiting to buy these sandwiches. The company reportedly had a record sales day.

On the surface this seems like a step backward from the steady progress that has been made towards equal rights for the LGBT community, with some worrying that it could be a sign that the pendulum is swinging back. News reports and blogs had gay people expressing dismay that so many people living in their same communities were so willing to go to all this trouble to publicly show their hostility towards them.

I think that that is far too pessimistic a view. Yes, there are still a lot of people out there, maybe from a third to half the population, who are opposed to granting the LGBT community equal rights. But we already know that from opinion polls. But we also know from the same polls that this group is shrinking rapidly and that the demographics are seriously against them, with younger people not sharing their views. The trend is unmistakable. Back in 2008 I predicted that “within the next decade gays will gain significantly in their struggle to be accepted as equals.” The change is coming even faster than I thought.

In light of that, what are we to make of this outpouring of public support for Chick-fil-A? We have to bear in mind that this kind of brief symbolic action is attractive mainly to those who are feeling beleaguered. Rather than being a show of strength, I think it is more a sign of powerlessness, of people finding a way to release their sense of frustration and impotence that things are not going the way they like on this issue.

What one should look at is what did not happen. By coming out in favor of same sex marriage and getting rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the military, president Obama has firmly aligned himself on the side of equal rights for the LGBT community. If opposition to gay rights was seen as a winning political issue, and given that Mitt Romney has been trailing steadily in the polls and needs something to break the stalemate, the Chick-fil-A uproar came at just the right time for him, providing him with a golden opportunity to strike a sharp contrast with Obama by endorsing the eat-in. He was urged by people like Bill Kristol to go and eat there because it was “the right thing to do, and politically smart, too.”

And yet Romney ducked the opportunity, angering social conservatives in the process. As another example of how he sees no advantage in advocating anti-gay views, Romney also agreed with Obama that gay boy scouts should be allowed in the organization though they both didn’t go so far as to cut their ties with the organization.

Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus was noticeably silent on the Chick-fil-A issue. So was House speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. In fact, the silence of the Republican party establishment before, during, and after the August 1 action was deafening. As far as I am aware, not a single one of the Republican politicians who think they have a future in national politics (such as vice-presidential wannabees Bibby Jindal, Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, and Marco Rubio) took part in this action or even publicly supported it. Their support, if expressed at all, only extended to tepidly saying they disapproved of mayors preventing the opening of the restaurants in their cities.

The only recognizable Republican politicians who enthusiastically supported the eat-in action were people like Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Lindsay Graham, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann, all people whose time on the national stage has passed and whose only hope of staying in the limelight is to act as spokespersons for the rump of the party.

So the Chick-fil-A episode, rather than demonstrating the strength of anti-gay attitudes, revealed the fact that it has ceased to be a potent political weapon.

Stephen Colbert gave an editorial on the issue that was interesting in the way he tried to distance his own Christian beliefs from the eat-in.

(This clip appeared on August 6, 2012. To get suggestions on how to view clips of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report outside the US, please see this earlier post.)

Comments

  1. thisisaturingtest says

    It strikes me that the number of people who showed up at Chick-Fil-A is kind of a nebulous thing to interpret as necessarily support for their position. First, how many of those people would have showed up anyway? I hate the food there, but a lot of folks seem to like it. Second, a lot of folks who show up at events like this on purpose aren’t necessarily doing so for the purpose of support- every event like this is going to attract the “hangers-on” type who may not care, or even know, what the protest is about- they just like the excitement. Finally, how many of those folks protesting were actually protesting against gay rights? I’m sure there were a few who were more anti-boycott than anti-gay (though I suppose, in this case, it could be argued they’re the same thing).
    I wouldn’t be too pessimistic about mere numbers without context.

  2. says

    Interesting take, and I think you’re right.

    Another optimistic thing to keep in mind is that I would bet good money that a decent percentage of the people participating in the eat-in have no particular stance on marriage equality either way, but have some misguided perception of what freedom of speech means… i.e. that freedom of religious speech means that you can’t harshly criticize religious speech. We all know that a lot of people feel this way, no matter how absurd it might be… I get the feeling a lot of the support is from “low-information voters” who are trying to stand up for Cathy’s right to express his opinion — completely failing to understand that nobody is infringing that right, we just have our own opinions of his opinion…

  3. Coragyps says

    “Their support, if expressed at all, only extended to tepidly saying they disapproved of mayors preventing the opening of the restaurants in their cities.”

    I disapprove of that, myself. Chik-fil-a is a private entity, after all….

  4. lordshipmayhem says

    I’m also willing to bet that a significant proportion of those sales were to people who like the food and didn’t even know, ahead of time, that there was any issue going on, not being terribly interested in (and therefore not paying attention to) the debates about LGBT rights and the Chick-Fil-A stance.

  5. dano says

    Coragyps is correct that they are a private entity just like the Boy Scouts (I will get into this below). I was there in support of Chick-fila-A and so were a lot of people I know. As I have stated in many other posts I am a little more liberal on the GLBT stance. I am for equal rights for everyone. I wish to keep the term “marriage” as a union between a man & woman & then use the phrase “civil union” for GLBT or for those that are straight and do not want to use the term “marriage”. Do I agree with the life style of GLBT, no. But it is their choice and not mine to make & for that reason alone I do not believe we should not allow them to create a legal union called a “civil union”.

    As far as the Boy Scouts go, I am leader in both a Boy Scout & Cub Scout group. My stance is simple I would not feel right as a heterosexual male going camping or being in semi closed quarters with girl scouts as you are asking for trouble. In the same way I feel strongly that gay men should not be doing the same with boys. It is simple statistics. You may be asking do I feel that men should not be Girl Scout Leaders…Yes. This is a time for bonding and of teaching life long values and you will find plenty of same sex leaders to take up the task. What about those men that are gay and have boys in scouting. I have plenty of families that provide little to no support for our Boy Scout Troop as our troop is lead entirely by past Eagle Scouts. Parents come & go depending on their schedule and if their boy stays involved. To be honest parent are unreliable as leaders because of this. With past Eagle scouts as leaders we have men that truly enjoyed their scouting experiences and wish to continue the tradition in teaching citizenship and core values that will last a life time.

  6. baal says

    Dano scrawled furiously for a few moments and came up with the following:

    My stance is simple I would not feel right as a heterosexual male going camping or being in semi closed quarters with girl scouts as you are asking for trouble. In the same way I feel strongly that gay men should not be doing the same with boys. It is simple statistics .

    (bolding is mine)

    Dano, your views continue to be consistent – I normally count that as a good thing but I am sure you have a logic fail. The impact is that gay men and scouts will stay in the closet and still do scouting. I know guys in that category. Guys like them have been in the scouts since it started.
    Do you have evidence that homosexual activity (willing or unwilling, broken down by ages of party involvement) has gone down in the last two years since the witch hunt has gone into high gear? Is that activity higher than the public a whole? Higher than other similar camping groups? What about the mixed sex scouting groups? I’m sure you have some simple statistics at hand. Also, keep in mind that pedo =/= gay and that sorting out the later won’t necessarily remove the former.

  7. Mattir says

    Dano, you might want to review your leader training materials and note that women as leaders are quite common. You might also note that the BSA runs coeducational programs for teens. I am a middle aged woman and spent the last week as a scoutmaster for a provisional troop at a Trail to Eagle camp. I had 2 teen girls who were camp staffers working and camping with our troop as aides, as well as 3 other male scoutmasters. We complied fully with BSA’s youth protection standards. We had, amazingly enough, not a single fleeting problem with the mixed-gender leadership in our troop. We outdid all the troops with male-only leadership in service projects, troop cohesion, and cleanliness and quality of the campsite. We had great youth leadership and no youth conflict problems. My observation, over 10 years of involvement with the BSA, is that the units with both male and female leadership have better programming, more unit cohesion, and a less bullying culture.

    As an aside, the BSA encourages FAMILY participation in scouting, and youth with involved parents do far better in scouting than those with parents who simply drop their kids off for meetings. What, precisely, was my son supposed to do to succeed given that his father will not participate in scouts? Or should such kids simply stay home so as not to challenge your pretty little worldview with their involved female parents? My son would not be working on his Eagle project if I hadn’t been willing to show up at camp with him for the first couple years and help him manage the bubba mentality of leaders like you. He would have fallen victim to the bullying such leaders encourage (to which the leaders would have responded by yelling at him to “man up”). My daughter would not be a senior instructor going on her 4th year of working at Boy Scout camp, considered functionally part of the senior staff at age 16, working on her Ranger Award in Venturing and having racked up several HUNDRED work hours (hers and volunteers) on the first of her 5 planned Hornaday Award projects.

    Both of my kids exemplify the Scout Law (trustworthy-loyal-helpful-friendly-courteous-kind-obedient-cheerful-thrifty-brave-clean-reverent) far more than you ever will. And they and their inclusive attitudes exemplify the future of scouting far more than you and your gender-segregated cowardliness do. I work with youth. They do not share your values or ideas. You may think they do, but that’s mainly because they’re smart enough not to talk openly in front of you. We value the lessons and traditions of scouting – the BSA is way too valuable for youth to allow people like you to control its future. There are many many many scouts and scouters who do not share the hateful policies of the national leadership, and we are not going anywhere. Time and justice are on our side.

  8. thisisaturingtest says

    dano:

    I am for equal rights for everyone. I wish to keep the term “marriage” as a union between a man & woman & then use the phrase “civil union” for GLBT or for those that are straight and do not want to use the term “marriage”.

    All for the “separate but equal” thing, right? You can’t see that demanding separation for the sake of separation only, and for no other reason, is inherently a claim that the folks being separated out are unequal to you?
    This is sly, I admit. It’s a little more subtle than the approach taken by opponents of interracial marriage in the 60’s (and even today). It’s not any more honest, though; or any less bigoted.

  9. JustKat says

    I think you have something there based on what I’ve been hearing some people say, but I think there were plenty of bigots, too.

    One of my co-workers has a daughter and a sister that are lesbians and two other gay family members and proudly went to Chick-Fil-A because she’s against gay marriage. I am not overly fond of this person to begin with but this made me think that much less of her. How can you look a person in the face that you claim to love and tell them that they don’t deserve the same things in life that YOU have??

    It takes religion.

  10. says

    I hope you’re right, that this is the dying gasp of bigotry, but I fear it might not be. It seems to me, for instance, that support for abortion rose to fairly high levels, but then the religious right wingnuts dug in and attacked it and now abortion rights are in jeopardy. The assault there has gained enough momentum the right is even after birth-control and far more importantly Griswold (the much more fundamental precedent underlying Roe). My observation is that perhaps the pro-abortion movement basically thought the battle was won and moved on to new challenges.

    But the resisters never give up and they will, as their mythical savior, rise again. Esp. as supported by wealthy special interests since anything that discredits science or progressive reality protects their continued greed. So I think reverses may be possible and the fight will continue long after it appears it has been won.

  11. dano says

    Mattir it sounds like you have a great program and I am glad to hear this. At no time did I say anything about not understanding who is allowed and not allowed as leaders. I am sorry to hear that your husband/son’s father did not want to participate in scouting. I am glad you were able to help out. In regards to your comment about scouts not wanting to talk about gays in front of me, when would I actually be talking to my scouts about this? We talk about scout law, oath, slogan, motto, etc. and of course camping but we do not talk to them about sex or sexual orientation. It sounds like this may be something you bring up but not our troop.

    As far as service hours, Eagle Scout Ranks, etc. we are a GOLD Nat’l Quality Unit and have 78 eagles over the years. We are a church backed troop (not LDS) and provide a well rounded program including many weekend camping trips, high adventure trips as well as trips to Philmont (we are going again next summer). I sit on the district committee for helping to start new troops & packs and my guess is in the next five years will be up for the Silver Beaver Award (highest leader award in scouting) and of course am an Eagle Scout. Our troop is visited at least once a month to watch how our boy lead troop is run and what goes on behind the scenes so others may imitate its success. Our troop’s track record speaks for itself.

    I do understand that a pedophile does not equal homosexual but on the other hand why put our boys in the same group with leaders that are attracted to the same sex? It is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Now if someday I had a gay father with a son in the troop ask to help out what would I do or say? That is a tough thing to answer. Of course there would need to be a background check done and we need to also see how he would match up with our current group of leaders. We have had several fathers over the years that have asked to help out that do not match up with our leaders whether it being rude, obnoxious or bad attitudes that sticks out when you speak with them. I have no problem telling them that at this time our main need is in areas such as finding drivers, booking trips, etc where no face to face time is needed with scouts or leaders. I always find an area where we can use their help but not everyone is fit or adjusted enough to work with the high energy level of young boys. Again congrats on what sounds like a well lead troop and may your troop continue to grow as ours has over our nearly 80 years of existence.

  12. dano says

    thisisaturingtest you may not agree with me but this is the best solution I have seen to meet somewhere in the middle. Do you have another option other than giving the word marriage to everyone?

  13. thisisaturingtest says

    Why is another option needed? What is your rational reason for needing another word to establish separate classes of the same thing? (Rational reason, ok? Not beliefs.)

  14. Jockaira says

    #5 dano says:

    I am for equal rights for everyone. I wish to keep the term “marriage” as a union between a man & woman & then use the phrase “civil union” for GLBT or for those that are straight and do not want to use the term “marriage”.

    A marriage certificate, as issued by the State, confers upon the holder certain rights, privileges and benefits that are established by convention and precedent. The denial of these benefits for the reason of shared gender of the applicants plainly leaves the applicants without full and equal protection before the law, and therefore is unconstitutional.

    If you want to reserve the term “marriage” as being between a man and a woman, the proper place to do that is in church. That right to do so is also in the same Constitution.

    If you want “equal rights for everyone” then the State must issue marriage certificates to all applicants complying with gender-neutral regulations, health laws, and reasonable fiscal responsibility, or issue none at all.

    The guiding principle of American Government is that it is for the benefit of all the people, not just those of the right belief, the right class, the right color, or the right gender. The State cannot legally and morally underwrite your personal beliefs, unless you want it to dissolve in the chaos of endless accommodation to every whacko philosophy and viewpoint there ever was.

  15. Mano Singham says

    Abortion seems to me to be on a different footing from LGBT rights. Arguments against homosexuality at their root are based purely on religion. This is not the case with abortion.

  16. thisisaturingtest says

    Sorry, but just to add another point that occurs to me. There is no “somewhere in the middle” between equality and inequality; to try to meet you somewhere in the middle by finding another word than marriage for the same thing is just to come all the way over to the side of inequality.

  17. Doug Little says

    Dano,

    My stance is simple I would not feel right as a heterosexual male going camping or being in semi closed quarters with girl scouts as you are asking for trouble.

    You know there is a difference between pedophilia and either being heterosexual or homosexual right?

    You are an ignorant, bigoted simple minded twit.

  18. Doug Little says

    crap blockquote fail. Should have been

    Dano,

    My stance is simple I would not feel right as a heterosexual male going camping or being in semi closed quarters with girl scouts as you are asking for trouble.

    You know there is a difference between pedophilia and either being heterosexual or homosexual right?

    You are an ignorant, bigoted simple minded twit.

  19. dano says

    Doung please read my post in number 5.2 before you put your foot in your mouth once again.

  20. Doug Little says

    Dano,

    I do understand that a pedophile does not equal homosexual

    OK good start.

    but on the other hand why put our boys in the same group with leaders that are attracted to the same sex? It is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

    So by your second sentence there you destroyed what you just said in your first. You don’t see a difference at all do you, be honest.

    Do you think it is normal as an adult to be sexually attracted to children of the opposite sex? It seem to me that’s what you are implying.

  21. Doug Little says

    I did, you are the one who put your foot in your mouth. You state that you know the difference and then you make a comment that is contrary to what you just stated. Idiot.

  22. Art says

    I’ve made a similar argument for a profound failure of the right wing. Looking at the sweep of events from Reagan on it looks like the right has been winning far more than they lose. But if I dig a little deeper I see the right repeatedly doubling down and betting the rent money. They are wide open pushing their agenda. They win a lot of battles but they really haven’t shifted the terms of debate much.

    Every year a wider swath of people see gayness as a non-issue. Women’s rights are essentially a no-brainer for anything but a thin crust of hard core misogynists and religious fanatics. The vast majority support minority rights. People want safe food, drugs, drinking water. They want strong regulation of banks.

    Fact is that even the hardest of the hard core Republicans have to couch their evil agenda in rhetoric that at least sounds like it aligns itself with these common values because they can’t openly say what they want to say and push what they want to push, and win. They can slide by only to the extent that they can conceal their desires and motives. This is not a strategy of strength and power. It is a strategy of last resort. Of desperate desire thwarted by weakness and shame.

    Better than twenty-five years of all-out effort and they haven’t shifted the terms of debate, or accomplished any of their major goals. Both the programs and philosophy of the New Deal, and Great Society, are intact. They have had funding cuts and been beat up around the edges but the structure is all still there just waiting for funding to return.

    Gay rights are a subset of this across the board failure. The right has pulled out all the stops. They have equated gay rights with Hitler and treason, and the end of the western world, and morality itself. In the face of these claims fed through the mighty Wurlitzer of the right-wing controlled media every year more people see gayness as a non-issue and gay marriage as a good thing. And the kids are more accepting than previous generations.

    It is just a matter of time before the right punches itself out and falls from physical and rhetorical exhaustion. They are down to dredging up lunatic conspiracy theories from John Birch publications. I don’t know how long they can go on. They may win this election cycle. Perhaps the midterm after.

    It is clear to me that they have been losing steam for years and thy haven’t come up with anything new for twenty years. They have won by exacerbating racial and religious differences. They gin up fear and exploit the tribal divisions. It works, but you have to keep turning up the rhetoric and even shear terror has a shelf life. Eventually terror turns to numbness and fails to motivate.

    That time is coming.

  23. Mano Singham says

    I agree. Ratcheting up the rhetoric is usually a sign of weakness, not strength.

  24. says

    Good evening Dano,

    I was going to write something fairly detailed and extensive, but I can see from the response of others that you are approaching nth status so I’ll simply say this.

    I am one of a growing number of Eagle Scouts who has returned his medal to the national organization in protest of the hijacking of the organization by a cabal controlled by religious interests (principally Roman Catholic and Mormon) who, as sponsors of troops and packs, direct the lion’s share of funding for the Boy Scouts of America.

    Nobody polled the membership. Nobody asked my brothers how they felt. Eleven white men met in secret and made a decision to smear the honor of my medal, of my brothers and of what was once a proud tradition.

    In protest we are sending back our medals to let the world know that we have not left the Boy Scouts but rather that this tiny cluster of ignorant and bigoted men have, through their dishonorable action, left us.

    You sir, as Steve LaBonne so elegantly put it, can go pound sand,

    Jeff
    Troop 216, Marietta, Ohio, Honor Court, 5 September 1973

  25. Mattir says

    Dano, I don’t know about your program, but in my experience, youth talk about stuff with adults they feel comfortable with. I don’t bring up sex or sexual orientation, but if youth do, I listen. It sounds like you may not.

  26. ollie says

    One thing about Chick-Fil-A: there is no way the political left could organize anything like this. Someone would balk because the chicken wasn’t free range; others would balk because the percentage of women (or minorities) in management wasn’t high enough; someone else would complain that they didn’t recycle enough..etc.

  27. Mattir says

    Jeff, some of us are staying and fighting. I appreciate people who return their Eagle Medals, but there’s also a huge place need for active volunteers and registered scouters to complain, refuse to give money, and (most importantly) provide adult protection and guidance for youth currently in scouting.

    While I was at camp last week, I laid into a senior council executive about the secret group, what a bad example it was for youth (who are taught that secret organizations are dangerous and totally not allowed per youth protection) and generally how the gay and atheist leader issue should be handled by sponsoring organizations instead of the BSA as a whole, since the way it’s been done does not allow me my own freedom of belief. He leaned fairly close to me and told me that this was like the civil rights struggle and change would happen and thanked me for being able to hang in and keep pushing. I went back to my provo troop floating with pride.

    Dano, I don’t give a shit about the word marriage. I would be totally fine with the government recognizing civil unions for everyone and leaving the “marriage” word up to individuals and their churches. What is not okay is the government giving some people civil unions and other people official “marriage” and more rights to go along with that spiffy word.

    Marriage is a human institution. My humanist Jewish marriage is different from a Mormon sealed-for-eternity marriage, from a Catholic sacramental marriage, from a Muslim polygamous marriage, from a lesbian or gay Unitarian Universlist marriage, from Hugh Hefner’s latest nuptials, and on and on. Your church does not own the word.

  28. M Groesbeck says

    It certainly doesn’t help that most of the media and the blogosphere have been lying about the whole thing. (“Dude in charge expressed an opinion unrelated to the conduct of the company” vs. “Chick-fil-a donates millions of dollars to anti-gay hate groups promoting recriminalization.”) The “free speech” angle has taken off so thoroughly…I wonder how many CFA “appreciators” are aware quite what they’re supporting?

  29. M Groesbeck says

    but on the other hand why put our boys in the same group with leaders that are attracted to the same sex? It is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

    Y’know what? The slander directed at gay men here is actually the second most obnoxious thing about your comment. Sure, you’re repeating a lie that’s used as an excuse for denial of rights, discrimination, and frequently violence, and yes, you should feel ashamed. But what’s worse than that?

    You are actively making boys more vulnerable to predators.

    By keeping people’s attention on the less likely predators (gay men), you’re encouraging people to overlook the more likely predators (straight and straight-presenting men). Either you’re so convinced that you’re right (even though you’re wrong) that you can’t be bothered to check on your facts (i.e. the bullshit defense) or you’re so devoted to heterosexual supremacy that you’re willing to call sexual abuse acceptable collateral damage as long as you get to do some legal and cultural fag-bashing. I’d like to think that it’s the somewhat-less-repulsive first option, but given how constantly people continue to pitch the lie even after the reality has been explained I sometimes have to wonder.

  30. M Groesbeck says

    You’re right — the political left probably couldn’t organize event focused on a collective act of conformity and loyalty to a hierarchical organization. Mostly because the contemporary Left in the U.S. is deeply anti-authoritarian; “leaderless” and heterogeneous mobilizations (Occupy is the most visible one lately; rather more democratically restricted than the Left as a whole, but rather less so than the media presentation) are more our style. That’s the whole point.

  31. says

    Mattir,

    Your choice is an honorable one and has my full support.

    What is important is that we stand up, we fight, we never give up.

    That is what scouting taught me.

    That is what I want scouting to continue to teach.

    Thank you,

    Jeff

  32. says

    Good morning Dailydoug,

    I think recent events at the Susan G. Komen For The Cure are instructive in this case.

    Yes, those who oppose a woman’s right to choose are out there, and Mano is correct in saying that reasoned arguments can be made for and against (I’m pro-choice, but I understand the “abortion is murder” position), but I think the anti-abortion position, as a society/political force, is far weaker than we are often lead to believe.

    Do all that you can to make today a good day,

    Jeff

  33. thisisaturingtest says

    dano:

    Now if someday I had a gay father with a son in the troop ask to help out what would I do or say?…of course there would need to be a background check done and we need to also see how he would match up with our current group of leaders.

    Now that’s interesting. If you really “understand that a pedophile does not equal homosexual” (or the reverse), you would want “a background check” on all fathers, hetero- as well as homosexual. Do you?

  34. dano says

    You can say what you want and like most liberals are just releasing hot air. You are the minority no matter what new poll you use. Scouting is a private group and with that they can make their own rules. If you wish to continue down your own path separate from the rules and regulations of the BSA I don’t think you will be around much longer. As far as the people handing back in heir Eagle badges, good riddance.

    What we need are more leaders that are willing to stand up for Scouting’s ideas and values that were the founding reason why it has lasted 100+ years. I am on several BSA blogs and it is funny when I hear liberals say that change is around the corner when on these blogs for every person against limiting membership there are 100 that agree with keeping with the original values. My suggestion would be for those that disagree to start their own group with their own rules and stop trying to change a program that has had such a positive impact on millions of boys. YiS, Dano

  35. thisisaturingtest says

    Dano? I asked you a couple of questions above- maybe you can get around to answering them when you’re done, uh, releasing hot air like this. And this

    You are the minority no matter what new poll you use.

    is kind of funny, in a five-year-old way. Are you going to threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue next?

  36. dano says

    I am fine with all legal unions being called “civil unions”. The word marriage would then just become a word and not a legal definition. For those that would like to continue saying they are married this would refer back to the traditional meaning of a ceremony performed in church to join one man with one woman for life.

  37. slc1 says

    Re Dano

    I would be willing to bet that Mr. Dano thinks that Jerry Sandusky is gay. Not so. Mr. Sandusky is a pedophile who picked on pre-teen boys because pre-teen girls were not available to him. Pedophiles, for the most part, don’t care about the sex of their victims, only their tender age. Had he had the access to pre-teen girls that he had to pre-teen boys, he would have gladly raped them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *