Willful Ignorance Leading us Down Dangerous Path

A “kiss-in” has been planned for today at Chick-Fil-A stores across the country in response to the wildly successful Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day two days ago. The “kiss-in” organized by gay rights activists has already drawn media attention. One such story (link changed to new source) caught my eye because of the quotes attributed to Herndon Graddick, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Before I address the quote, I will point out that I have no problem with the “kiss-in”, if that’s how those folks want to express their views. This response further confirms the success of the “Appreciation Day” earlier this week, and they’ll have a very hard time matching it.

What bothers me about this whole controversy isn’t that gay rights individuals are upset at Chick-Fil-A President Dan Cathy. It isn’t that they believe in gay marriage – although I believe marriage is and always should be between two sexually-compatible persons.

It IS the blanket and thoughtless categorizations by many in the LGBT community (and their straight sympathizers) in their descriptions of conjugal marriage supporters as “hateful” and “bigots”, to mention a couple.

Here’s the quote:

“Without question, Dan Cathy has every right to voice his opinions and beliefs,” Herndon Graddick, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said in a statement.

“But he should meet and get to know the people that he’s speaking out against – the people who are harmed by his company’s multi-million dollar donations to anti-gay hate groups working to hurt everyday LGBT Americans and break apart loving families,” Graddick said.

I’m glad Mr. Graddick thinks Dan Cathy has a right to his opinion. But then he goes on to insinuate that Dan Cathy is either ignorant of or doesn’t care about the well-being of LGBT Americans. How in the world can Graddick make those comments without knowing Dan Cathy? Is it an automatic, knee-jerk reaction toward those who believe in the ages-old, traditional definition of marriage? Sure seems like it.

Graddick should – must – know that Chick-Fil-A has a long-standing reputation for excellent customer service and treating all their employees with dignity and respect. Those “anti-gay hate groups” Graddick refers to are also in the same category. This gets ignored every time the issue pops up.

Here’s the underlying problem: When the debate shifts away from respectfully discussing the merits of traditional vs. redefined marriage based on reason and logic and turns into name-calling and baseless accusations, that’s when I draw the line. Anyone who thinks that the vast majority of traditional marriage supporters are “homophobic” and “bigots” are worse than clueless. They are willfully ignorant to their own hate, intolerance and bigotry.

Like this guy, for example. Same guy who was subsequently fired by his company for what he did.

That’s not even the worst of it. This attitude is lurching our society closer and closer to a very disturbing period – one in which a redefinition of marriage will lead to unjust discrimination and marginalization of traditional marriage supporters. It doesn’t matter if equating gay marriage rights to basic civil rights is total bunk. Once the powers-that-be buy into that mindset, it’s only a matter of time before individuals and organizations start being punished and ostracized for their beliefs.

Mark my words. I hope I’m wrong.

5 Responses

  1. The decision to allow a “marriage” or civil union between two people of the same sex should be left to the individual states, with no imposition on other States to recognize the union if they choose not to. That said, like everything else liberals and “progressives” want to impose on society by law or otherwise — regardless of whether society wants it or not — there will be serious unintended consequences if this is ever codified. It’s always the same with everything these morons do.

  2. “Herndon Graddick” ?

  3. I’m thinking that those who were for segregation and were against women’s rights made pretty much the same arguments back in the day and felt similarly threatened. Fortunately, this country was able to move past them…and so it will be with same-sex marriage and gay rights.

    Actually, the debate moved away from “name-calling and baseless accusations” years ago when at least one guy found himself tied to a fence post in the middle of nowhere after being beaten because of who he loved.

    It could be the most grandest of all ironies for some to play the victim card in this struggle. If Matthew Shepard were still around I’m sure he would agree.


  4. Rick obviously had his PELOSI PROGLIB MODEL PC1000 BLEEDING HEART CLICHE GENERATOR turned to 11.

    1. Matthew Shepard’s killers weren’t executed, as they should have been; they plead out and are serving life sentences. Of Byrd’s three killers, two are on death row and one is serving a life sentence. Personally, I would execute the lot of them. Not as an example to those who murder blacks or gays, but as an example to those who murder human beings. The crime is homicide, not gayicide or blackicide. See the distinction? We should never create a special class of crimes that diminish an already horrible underlying crime. It accomplishes nothing — except to provide a sop to special interest groups and hysterical liberals trying to make sense of the senseless with puny brains.

    2. As I said above, the decision to allow a “marriage” or civil union between two people of the same sex should be left to the individual states, with no imposition on other States to recognize the union if they choose not to. I have zero problem with that as long as that is the choice of the residents of that state. But a “right” to gay marriage? Not in the Constitution. Just like there is no “right” to healthcare or a “right” to own a home or a “right” to healthier lunch or a “right” to a Ford Mustang Boss 302. Doesn’t exist.

    3. Here’s a little history for you Ricky boy: the party of segregation was your party, the Democrat Party; my party, the party of Frederick Douglass, not so much. For almost one hundred years Democrats in the South — known as Dixiecrats — stopped every effort to integrate blacks into American Society. You guys wrote the book on segregation and ”separate but equal.” Jim Crow? Democrats thought that up. Poll tax? Ditto. KKK? Yup. You guessed it. A Dem founded it. Can you name him? I guess not. You don’t read too much.

    4. Woodrow Wilson, the father of the American progressive movement — another Democrat; man, you guys were on fire, hatin’ and hatin’ and hatin’ — was not only a virulent racist, he didn’t want women to vote either. He was finally forced into accepting Women’s Suffrage as a war measure in 1918. That would be World War I. Another little event you probably haven’t read much on.

  5. To expand on George’s #2, the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to ALL citizens, However, it should lead one to have to answer a very basic question: What is marriage? Is it ANY relationship based on sexual union(s), or is it one defined by and taken for granted for millenia as a specific type of physically-compatible relationship which can only be between a man and a woman? Some people can think all day long that the sky is purple, but just because they think that doesn’t make it so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: