Chick-fil-A and “Traditional Marriage” Should Not Become Rallying Point for Social Conservatives

Posted on Jul 30 2012 - 6:46am by Harrison

As the Chick-fil-A president’s comments about supporting “traditional marriage” have predictably worked their way through the media system, the rush to support a fast food business peddling chicken has been just as “on cue.”

Trouble is, Republicans are not doing themselves any favors regarding Chick-fil-A or “traditional marriage” and, in fact, may be hurting the Conservative cause.

The Chick-fil-A/gay marriage controversy has become a rallying cry for many Conservatives who see any attack by Democrats as an attack against them and thus it must be responded to immediately and in great force with people vowing to eat Chick-fil-A 5 times daily or to bring 20 friends to the restaurant to make up for the business lost by gay marriage supporters.

Conservatives, religious or otherwise, have no business telling any adult whom they can and cannot marry.  Part of being a Conservative is letting adults decide how they want to organize their personal lives.

Fighting gay marriage is a losing battle for Conservatives because it involves “choice” and “adults.”  By saying adults should not be able to make the important decision about how their lives should be run Conservatives are saying they really don’t love freedom.

In talking with some of my Liberals friends and interacting with some of their friends on places like Facebook what I have learned is that Republicans are thought of as being the only source of the anti-gay marriage movement.

When I have pointed out that it was Democrat Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law they are shocked.  When I tell them that Barack Obama agreed publicly with Chick-fil-A’s president on gay marriage until only a few months ago they are shocked!  When I tell them that when California’s Proposition 8 anti-gay marriage ballot measure passed with 70% (according to the LA Times) support of blacks they are shocked!  And when I tell them that North Carolina voted against gay marriage just a few months ago and they were, in 2008, a pro-Obama state there is a deep sense of denial.

And yet it is Republicans who get slapped with the anti-gay marriage label when, clearly, it is not so much of a partisan issue as it is a social one.

But the Chick-fil-A public relations disaster (and it is, lets be clear) is really only painting Republicans in a negative light and, in an election year when the press is pulling out all the stops to help their man, Barack Obama, win the presidency again it’s not helpful for people like Sarah Palin to go to Chick-fil-A to grab herself some headlines at the cost of making all Republicans look badly.

Sarah Palin might be a lightening rod for all sides but one thing she is good at is promoting herself.  After all, Palin needs to keep herself in the headlines so she will stay relevant to the political discourse so she can continue to get paid for giving speeches, writing books, and appearing on television and radio.

Here’s Palin most recently keeping herself “relevant”:


When I first saw this photo of Palin and her husband I have to admit the most troubling aspect of it was the thumbs up then that she had to have her husband pose with her so as to emphasize the husband and wife aspect.  From a propaganda perspective, the photo is brilliantly staged but its composition suggests its less about businesses having the “freedom” to support the causes they choose and more about telling Social Conservatives they need to support Chick-fil-A against the dirty Liberals.

Contrast the Palin photo with this one that has been recently circulating about Sally Ride, the first American woman in space:


Chick-fil-A’s president might say his company goes by “Biblical values” and Social Conservatives might be cheering him on and encouraging their children to eat deep fried chicken and get fatter in order to support his “freedom” but, really, all he’s done is take the heat off of Liberals and once again made Conservatives look badly.

13 Comments so far. Feel free to join this conversation.

  1. Steve Dennis July 30, 2012 at 4:52 PM -

    In the end I don’t think the Cnick-fil-A issue will have any role in the election, but what I do think will play a role is the Democrats decision to put gay marriage in their official platform for the reasons you mentioned above. Anywhere where gay marriage has been on the ballot it has failed–even in California–because the majority of the people do not want it. I think the Democrats have made a political blunder by including it. George Bush won all the states in 2004 where gay marriage was on the ballot and I don’t think this is a winning issue for the Democrats either.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..Illegal immigrants don’t have to prove they qualify for DREAM Act protections if they are arrested

  2. LD Jackson July 30, 2012 at 5:32 PM -

    As I am sure you are well aware of my position on homosexual marriage, there is no real need for me to go into that here. As for the Chik-fil-A situation, I have written about it a couple of times, for a specific reason. Dan Cathy was asked about his views and he made them known. Immediately afterwards, he and his business were attacked for being “anti-gay”. In reality, all he did was voice his support of the traditional definition of marriage and explained why he did so. The liberals went completely off the deep end and had a coronary. I felt it was worth defending Chik-fil-A against an attack that was completely unwarranted.
    LD Jackson recently posted..Distracted Pedestrians Another Quandary For Politicians

    • Harrison July 30, 2012 at 6:46 PM -

      I know how you feel about it and I respect that. I just think it’s a losing proposition, in the long run, for the GOP. At one time inter-racial marriage was looked down upon.

      I know it’s not exactly the same, but I think in 20-30 years people will think it’s silly it took so long.

  3. edge of the sandbox July 30, 2012 at 11:02 PM -

    Harrison, I think you are way off.
    Marriage is very much government’s business. Marriage is not a right, it’s something that society sanctions. I didn’t have the right to marry. I have to ask for the permission from two separate sets of authority — the state and the rabbi. You have a right to copulate with any consenting adult/number of adults, just not to marry them.
    The puny number of gays interested in marriage and sky-high divorce rate tell me that gays themselves are not interested in marriage. Gay marriage has been tried, and it doesn’t work. On the other hand, polygamy has a long history worldwide. There will be many takers for that.
    Finally, what’s her face, the bimbo, with her 72-hour marriage is an exception that proves the rule. If we wouldn’t have the ideal of “till death will tar us apart” she wouldn’t make headlines. Failures of other straight people have nothing to do with gay marriage, at least not at this point.
    edge of the sandbox recently posted..Is Barack Obama Trying to Define a New Baseline of Support for Democrats?

    • Harrison July 31, 2012 at 8:03 AM -

      I don’t think the State should be in the marriage business at all. Why should a Government be able to approve of what two consenting adults decide? “Marriage” is for the priests to figure out and bless… the State should only be concerned with things like tax, property, and child rights.

      Conservatives seem to want the “Freedom” to home school their kids, be left alone on their land, and not have Uncle Sam telling them what to do… why the blindspot with marriage?

      • edge of the sandbox July 31, 2012 at 10:28 PM -

        If marriage is left to religious institutions alone, polygamy is effectively legalized, and the basic social fabric of society is destroyed.
        State is in the business of marriage because of the child rights (they are violated in polygamous societies).
        edge of the sandbox recently posted..A Lovely Conference

        • Harrison July 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM -

          I don’t see how that necessarily becomes the case. That’s like saying if we legalize gay marriage people will start marrying dogs.

          • edge of the sandbox August 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM -

            No, people will not be marrying dogs. However, if you destroy traditional marriage, new forms of marriage will emerge. Polygamists *are* watching, and there is a push for polygamy already underway. If marriage will be up to religious institutions, those who traditionally practice polygamy, namely Muslims, will practice it in the US. You will find cults practicing polygamy, and perhaps stray Christian and Jewish denominations, too.
            Besides, if you leave marriage to religion, what are atheists to do?
            edge of the sandbox recently posted..Ask Your Councilman Where He Stands on Grantly Dick-Read

            • Harrison August 2, 2012 at 9:30 PM -

              I don’t think Atheists will be upset… it’s tough enough being one the “marriage” issue won’t bother them.

            • edge of the sandbox August 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM -

              Well, in Israel, for instance, where there is no civic marriage, the non-religious have to go to Malta to elope, and they don’t like it.
              edge of the sandbox recently posted..Happy Birthday Mr President One Year Later

            • Harrison August 5, 2012 at 10:35 PM -

              Israel is a bit of a unique case!