Headlines

Mollie Hemingway

The gay-marriage debate is too vicious, and here’s what we need to do about it

If the idea that marriage is the conjugal union of man and wife is bigotry — and the mainstream media and the cultural elite have pounded this view non-stop for years (here’s the latest example of the accompanying holier-than-thou pietism with which the view is pushed) — then you should respond by tormenting drive-thru workers who are part of the bigotry-industrial complex. You should speak ill of people who hold this view on Facebook. Often! You should feel like eating a chicken sandwich was about people putting their boot on your chest.

The thing is, though, that it’s not. And the media and the cultural elite have been lying. And they have gotten us to a place where people are unable to just be civil to each other (one Ricochet member mentioned he recently got kicked out of his fantasy football league for supporting Chick-fil-A)…

If our country is to work through these debates about what marriage is and what it should be, we simply must devote ourselves to listening to arguments and thinking things through. It is impossible to do that when we dismiss supporters of traditional marriage as bigots.

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 … 6

Marriages can be annulled, among other reasons, if the marriage is not consummated.

It’ll be interesting to see how many property settlements play out when gay marriages spawn gay divorces.

DarthBrooks on August 3, 2012 at 2:41 PM

It’s already happening and bringing with it a whole new sense to the term cat fight.

A bigger problem, I understand, arises in the custody arrangements when the SS couple has been allowed to adopt or where one of the two women has been inseminated, with three versions there–neither suppled the egg, the vessel supplied the egg, or the non-vessel supplied the egg. Oy, reproductive technology.

BuckeyeSam on August 3, 2012 at 2:55 PM

People have a freedom of speech that the government should not infringe upon. Dan Cathy exercised his. Citizens exercised their by buying his products and he both benefited from ($profits) and suffered from (gay kiss day) the consequences of exercising it. The guy in the car exercise his freedom of speech and he’ll both benefit from (probably speaking gigs/job offers elsewhere at gay friendly companies) and suffer from (by getting fired) the consequences. We don’t have a freedom from the consequences of our exercising our rights. It’s just that Rahm E et al don’t like to see those with whom they disagree exercising them.

ted c on August 3, 2012 at 2:56 PM

As soon as commenters on here stop calling gays deviants and perverts (not all of them, but it definitely happens), I’ll stop calling them bigots.

sobincorporated on August 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM

ernesto, the weasel, ran away from the other thread, when factually challenged.

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Since the guy was fired only for using his First Amendment rights of free speech, shouldn’t you be out there protesting on his behalf?

inthemiddle on August 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Wrong again demwit. He was fired for violating the company’s code of conduct, which he signed a contract to adhere to when he was hired.

Of course adhering to contracts mean as much to you and your ilk as swearing to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. does – nothing.

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM

They are Jacobins. The goal is to criminalize opposition.

forest on August 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Money post!!

Talon on August 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM

So, when can we expect you, Schadenfreude, to to be boycotting this man’s company for taking away this God-granted right?

inthemiddle on August 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

The First Amendment doesn’t give you an immunity from being fired by a private company. If Mr. Smith thinks he was treated unfairly, he can take his former employers to court on a wrongful termination suit, and I fully support his right to do that.

Good Solid B-Plus on August 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM

But given the current climate, I don’t trust the Left to leave it alone instead of figuring up some way to force all churches to recognize same sex marriage.

John_Locke on August 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Not just to recognize it, but to sanctify it. And if the Church refuses, the next campaign will be to take away its tax exemptions and call preaching the Bible hate speech.

And then the schools will be required to eliminate anything from their curriculums and books that refers to man-woman marriage and traditional families with a mother and father, and they will be required to teach kindergartners that any kind of family is A-OK. And if you don’t agree with this you are a bigot and a Neanderthal.

10 years ago we were promised that civil unions were all they wanted.

rockmom on August 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Reno_Dave on August 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

That argument never wins. The left argues that same position all the time as a way to hand the authority over to the State.

We are not descendant from any of those groups you mentioned. This country is here because people wanted to break away from the European pattern of conflating god and country.

budfox on August 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Since the guy was fired only for using his First Amendment rights of free speech, shouldn’t you be out there protesting on his behalf?

inthemiddle on August 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Wrong, the dolt was fired for berating an innocent girl.

antipc on August 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Since the guy was fired only for using his First Amendment rights of free speech, shouldn’t you be out there protesting on his behalf?

inthemiddle on August 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Wrong again demwit. He was fired for violating the company’s code of conduct, which he signed a contract to adhere to when he was hired.

Of course adhering to contracts mean as much to you and your ilk as swearing to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. does – nothing.

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM

SMACK DOWN!!!!

Flora puts it out of the park!!

Talon on August 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

The First Amendment doesn’t give you an immunity from being fired by a private company. If Mr. Smith thinks he was treated unfairly, he can take his former employers to court on a wrongful termination suit, and I fully support his right to do that.

Good Solid B-Plus on August 3, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Yup.

And what is going to be found is that companies have a considerable degree of leeway in getting rid of executive officers who not only behave in a fashion likely to bring disgrace to their organization, but openly publicize and promote this behavior.

Such as filming yourself and uploading it to YouTube.

Furthermore, proven liar inthemiddle, isn’t it you fellow leftists who screamed and pissed yourself that an executive’s conduct is reflective of their business, and demanded that executives who behaved badly be fired?

Oh, that’s right. You’re a proven liar who has pretty much zero intellectual honesty or integrity.

northdallasthirty on August 3, 2012 at 3:04 PM

No one is opposing traditional marriage, what they are opposing is people trying to use religious doctrine to define civil marriage

Zekecorlain on August 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Actually they are.
Traditional marriage is a man and a woman. Some are opposing that traditional definition.
What is difficult to understand about that?

If the rub is differences in tax law, pensions and property etc, work to change those qualifiers. It would be a much easier task to accomplish, don’t you agree??

What is the fixation on the word marriage??
Call it something else..that way it’ll be super special.

Mimzey on August 3, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Unfortunately for bigots like you, it’s much more likely to go to the Supreme Court where it will be legalized. Thanks to Kennedy and Roberts – two amazing SC Justices!

inthemiddle on August 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Nothing would propel a constitutional amendment faster, then if this court, already delegitimized due to the absurd 0bamacare ruling, did that.

Rebar on August 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Of course adhering to contracts mean as much to you and your ilk as swearing to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. does – nothing.

Flora Duh

wasn’t he fired for something he did as a private citizen on his lunch break?

Zekecorlain on August 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Since the guy was fired only for using his First Amendment rights of free speech, shouldn’t you be out there protesting on his behalf?

inthemiddle on August 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

He was able to exercise his right to free speech. We all saw the youtube video he posted and then took down. He does not have the right to a job. That’s between his employer and him.

Fallon on August 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Liberals Call for Killing of 6 year old Conservative!

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Wow!

d1carter on August 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Since the guy was fired only for using his First Amendment rights of free speech, shouldn’t you be out there protesting on his behalf?

I mean, the whole CFA thing wasn’t about hating gay people, right? It was about free speech, right?

So, when can we expect you, Schadenfreude, to to be boycotting this man’s company for taking away this God-granted right?

inthemiddle on August 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Apples and oranges.

First, he could have created a placard and stood on public property nearby, protesting without disrupting service and trying to humiliate a diligent employee. Instead, he got into the (busier-than-hell, it’s safe to assume) drive-thru lane, disrupted service to deliver his rant, and order nothing but a water (cheap piece of sh*t).

Second, I understand he WAS an executive officer of his FORMER employer, so it’s likely that he may have been under an employment agreement with his employer, one of the provisions of which he shouldn’t do anything to embarrass his employer. Peaceful protest, no problem. Disruptive rant that he himself sends viral, over the line.

Third, do we know when this guy did this? Lunchtime fine. But if my employee is chewing up a part of a normal work day when his or her a** should be in the office, they’re gone.

BuckeyeSam on August 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Mimzey on August 3, 2012

Traditional marriage is a contract between a man and the woman’s father, it can include any number of wives and has nothing to do with the modern concept of equal partner marriage. Go read Genesis 29:16 for what an example of traditional marriage.
Now remember that this idea was ended when women gained full citizenship and legal rights.

Zekecorlain on August 3, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Call it something else..that way it’ll be super special.

Mimzey on August 3, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Call it “Garriage” and everyone can be happy, amirite?

Mord on August 3, 2012 at 3:09 PM

It’s more that the “win at all costs” gay marriage people cannot compromise and understand that some a large majority of people would like to keep a tradition (or religious aspect) and there’s no respect for that.

kim roy on August 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Fixed it for ya.

Don’t get backed into a corner that this is some huge social movement for progress and you are a tiny retrograde force that only deserves “respect.” Large majorities of Americans still believe in the traditional definition of marriage. And they are tired of being bullied and called bigots.

rockmom on August 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Yes, I wasn’t as precise on that as I should have been. Thanks for the correction. It is quite clear that the majority of voters wish marriage to remain a “traditional” word with “traditional” meaning. Or at least it is when they are in the voting booth, which is where it matters the most as it’s quantifiable.

In other words, the loudest person doesn’t win.

kim roy on August 3, 2012 at 3:09 PM

In the meanwhile

Welcome to the Great Obamanation. To be sure, Obama didn’t start the recession all by himself, but he’s doing nothing to end it. The mortgage bomb was planted by the Democrats 10 and 20 years ago, and we know the perps: Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and his lover at Fannie, and Ted Kennedy, to name a few. With the help of the corrupt media, they can cover their tracks, because empty mortgages forced on the banks 20 years ago exploded in 2008. Most people don’t think long-term. In the last Congress, the Democrats seeded a whole new crop of long-term explosives, and when those bubbles explode in another decade, they will point the finger at Wall Street, which won’t even be brick and mortar anymore. But those stupid kids will protest a symbolic street in New York City because it makes them feel progressive.

Conservatives are the scapegoats in this age of public idiocy. The media love to trash the Tea Party, blacks, and women who wander off the plantation, and anybody who doesn’t believe in their mad schemes. Our Current Occupant loves to scapegoat us. He seems to think blaming is a substitute for governing, and with the agitprop media on his side, he might just pull it off. Lincoln was almost right: If you fool enough people enough of the time, a lot of dumbed-down voters might just re-elect a mentally fixated wunderkind like Obama.

…all on purpose. Moochers, pitchfork your looters. They keep you enslaved in modern day plantations, for votes and their power only. Period.

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM

wasn’t he fired for something he did as a private citizen on his lunch break?

Zekecorlain on August 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Nope. He was fired because, as an executive officer who is listed in public filings and other official documents as representing the company, he engaged in conduct which brought undue, unnecessary, and harmful publicity to his employer, and which portrayed the company in a fashion inconsistent with its stated values.

northdallasthirty on August 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM

wasn’t he fired for something he did as a private citizen on his lunch break?

Zekecorlain on August 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

As someone said above, Mr. Smith is free to take the company to court if the feels he’s been wrongfully let go. Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if the and the ACLU haven’t already been in contact with each other.

If Mr. Smith had not put that video on youtube, which linked him back to his company, they probably would have never known about the incident.

But he just couldn’t resist showing off to the world what a big brave man he was by berating a young woman who was only doing her job.

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 3:11 PM

So, when can we expect you, Schadenfreude, to to be boycotting this man’s company for taking away this God-granted right?

inthemiddle on August 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You Fool:

1. He has a 1st Amendment right to say anything he wants.

2. His company has the right to fire him.

3. Your take w/b like N. Korea or China, where he’d be in labor camps…you too, for that matter. Wake up, dummy.

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:11 PM

10 years ago we were promised that civil unions were all they wanted.

rockmom on August 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

In the 80′s it was tolerance and freedom of choice. In the 90′s it was acceptance and representation. Now, we’re on to equality.

It’s all variations of affirmative action before science sorts the issue out. Once the papers arrive that genetic homosexuality can be mapped, we’re going to enter a whole new range of open aggression.

As Lib himself said, some gay people do not want to know or care, because the community knows a good portion are not-genetics based.So we’re talking about cultural choice, which is not a protected minority, and things spiral out of control from there.

budfox on August 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM

inthemiddle is clueless to what it means to be a CFO or another leaders in any joint. As a consequence, like Obama, who never created or held a real job, is utterly clueless.

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM

another leaders leader

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM

But given the current climate, I don’t trust the Left to leave it alone instead of figuring up some way to force all churches to recognize same sex marriage.

John_Locke on August 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Not just to recognize it, but to sanctify it. And if the Church refuses, the next campaign will be to take away its tax exemptions and call preaching the Bible hate speech.

And then the schools will be required to eliminate anything from their curriculums and books that refers to man-woman marriage and traditional families with a mother and father, and they will be required to teach kindergartners that any kind of family is A-OK. And if you don’t agree with this you are a bigot and a Neanderthal.

10 years ago we were promised that civil unions were all they wanted.

rockmom on August 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Exactly. They want their personal choice to engage in physically unhealthy, aberrant sexual conduct not merely to be accepted but to be celebrated from the highest mountaintop and from sea to shining sea and to be taught in every school to children of the youngest ages. Anything short of that is unacceptable to them.

BuckeyeSam on August 3, 2012 at 3:15 PM

That is so wrong.

Government is merely the manifestation of societies trying to organize in ways that promote the general welfare of the people.

Tribal societies are forms of government, and there are few tribal societies throughout history that didn’t define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The Greeks had democracy, and they, with only a few exceptions, defined marriage between as being between a man and a woman.

Same for the Romans, dynasties of China, the feudal lords of Japan, etc.

Reno_Dave on August 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

“General welfare”: the two sweetest words in the English language for liberals. If that’s the standard for justifying government encroachment into private matters, then practically nothing is off-limits. Why stop at marriage in this case? Providing everyone with “free” healthcare would be promoting the “general welfare” too. Hey, maybe the grandfather and poster boy of socialized healthcare in America, Mitt Romney, was on to something after all..

Armin Tamzarian on August 3, 2012 at 3:15 PM

inthemiddle on August 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I am a 1% who knows what the company stands for, contrary to you, looter at worst, moocher at ‘best’.

The Ds have made a latrine out of the USA. Reclaim the land, or float in the D slush, and go under. Nothing short will do.

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Liberals Call for Killing of 6 year old Conservative!

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Wow!

d1carter on August 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Disgustingly breathtaking, isn’t it?

Interesting, I’ve challenged ernesto and inthemiddle to address that attack in 2 different threads. In each thread they’ve suddenly beat a hasty retreat.

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Traditional marriage is a contract between a man and the woman’s father, it can include any number of wives and has nothing to do with the modern concept of equal partner marriage. Go read Genesis 29:16 for what an example of traditional marriage.
Now remember that this idea was ended when women gained full citizenship and legal rights.

Zekecorlain on August 3, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Thats a silly argument to try and make. We don’t live in a theocracy, and the OT…which was a guide for people who chose to follow fundamental Judaism..has nothing to do with the issue.

Who do you think should not be allowed to marry, and on what grounds would you deny them that?

Mimzey on August 3, 2012 at 3:17 PM

wasn’t he fired for something he did as a private citizen on his lunch break?

Zekecorlain on August 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Leaders of companies, and often employees too, can not do whatever they please, if they signed rules of conduct. For ex. you can not get drunk, in many cases, when you are on business travel. It’s still ‘free’ Capitalism and enterprises set their own rule, for now.

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:18 PM

blink: Zekecorlain, can you confirm that you support True Marriage Equality? traditional Greco-Roman wrestling?

ftf

Terp Mole on August 3, 2012 at 3:19 PM

wasn’t he fired for something he did as a private citizen on his lunch break?

Zekecorlain on August 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Many companies forbig employees at all levels to drink during lunch. Others forbig drugs at any time. It’s still free to set the rules. He had signed a higher level of conduct, as a CFO. You/we are free to disagree and he is free to work elsewhere, if he doesn’t like the rules, and doesn’t obide by them.

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM

If the guy has a right to shout at a drive thru employee, then his company has a right to fire him. The company had a right to hire him didn’t they—with that came the right to fire him. The fella still has a right to go shout at drive thru employees today, tomorrow and the next. Probably not a good idea tho….

ted c on August 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM

forbig = forbid

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM

@Mimzey on August 3, 2012 I thought you were an advocate of Traditional marriage?? Are you trying to say that marriage has been redefined?

Zekecorlain on August 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM

But he just couldn’t resist showing off to the world what a big brave man he was by berating a young woman who was only doing her job.

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 3:11 PM

She and said ACLU (good for nothing fair, except for leftist causes) should sue him for harrassment.

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:23 PM

She and said ACLU (good for nothing fair, except for leftist causes) should sue him for harrassment.

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Resist We Much, not that I advocate you working, for now, but maybe after Nov. 6, nice case for you :)

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Have you ever read an employment contract?

blink on August 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Has he ever signed one?

The Occupy is strong with him.

CorporatePiggy on August 3, 2012 at 3:24 PM

In each thread they’ve suddenly beat a hasty retreat.

Flora Duh on August 3, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Weasels…I challenged ernesto too, and he ran away.

Schadenfreude on August 3, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Why are gay’s so upset?

They can already get licensed in any state.

Terp Mole on August 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

@Mimzey on August 3, 2012 I thought you were an advocate of Traditional marriage?? Are you trying to say that marriage has been redefined?

Zekecorlain on August 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Marriage has always been between a man and a women for thousands of years. Society has changed but the fundamentals of marriage have not.

sharrukin on August 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I see that the writer of that column has used the phrase, traditional marriage.

Marriage should not have the adjective traditional in front of it as a modifier. Marriage is marriage as it always has been—between a man and a woman.

The word traditional is an extraordinarily inappropriate description of an institution established across time and cultures. A tradition is usually quite location and/or time specific. Its use here concedes that there may be other forms of marriage—which there are not. What is being advocated is an overthrow of marriage and not an alternative.

Words are everything. Language inserted into political dialogue can be and is a propaganda tool. Definition of terms subtly shifts the argument and begins the erosion of ground.

“…if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought….What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them.”

INC on August 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 … 6