1. Let marriage be held in honor (esteemed worthy, precious, of great price, and especially dear) in all things. And thus let the marriage bed be undefiled (kept undishonored); for God will judge and punish the unchaste [all guilty of sexual vice] and adulterous. Hebrews 13:4 (AMP)
  2. A Southern-fried chicken sandwich on a soft white bun with a couple of
    pickle slices is fast becoming the culinary symbol of one of the
    country’s major social issues.

    The latest uproar began this month when Dan T. Cathy, whose deeply
    religious father, S. Truett Cathy, started the company in 1967, told a
    Christian news organization that Chick-fil-A supported “the biblical definition of the family unit.”

  3. Fuel was added to the fire when several democrat officials threatened a BAN on Chick-fil-a’s expansion plans into major democrat cities.

    Proco “Joe” Moreno, one of 50 Windy City aldermen who make up the City Council, told the Chicago Tribune that he plans to prevent Chick-fil-A from building its second Chicago restaurant in his trendy, hipster-filled ward.

    Moreno stated his position in strong terms, referring to Cathy’s
    “bigoted, homophobic comments” in a proposed opinion page piece that an
    aide also sent to Tribune reporters. “Because of this man’s ignorance, I
    will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the
    1st Ward.”

    The alderman has the ideological support of Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

    “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” the mayor said in a
    statement when asked about Moreno’s decision. “They disrespect our
    fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it
    would be empty.”

    The reaction has been intense. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the
    Boston Herald that he no longer wanted Chick-fil-A in his city.

    First Boston. Then Chicago.

    The next city to tell Chick-fil-A to keep out? San Francisco.

    Edwin M. Lee (D),
    mayor of the progressive city, tweeted Thursday night: “Very
    disappointed #ChickFilA doesn’t share San Francisco’s values &
    strong commitment to equality for everyone.” 

    He also added a warning to his subsequent tweet: “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”

    Even fictional TV stars get tossed into the fray

    Muppet’s
    creator Jim Henson Co. backed out of a partnership
    with the chain to make kids meals toys.

    The opposition took to the airwaves and rapidly deplored press releases firmly decrying the “intolerance” of Chick-Fil-A.

  4. Social media was all atwitter with the controversy. Rosanne Barr infamous for her crotch grabbing, off-key rendition of the Star Spangled Banner at the 1990 Padre’s game chimed in with her usual gutter snipe wishing all patrons of Chick-Fil-A would die of cancer. Such a lady.
  5. The FOOD FIGHT has officially commenced. On the supportive side of the aisle we first hear from former Presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum proposed a Chick-Fil-A appreciation day set for Wednesday August 1.
  6. Now the rest of the American citizenry has been drawn into this food fight once again dragging the issue of ‘traditional marriage’ before the American people. It was time to take a vote. All in favor visit your local Chick-Fil-A and show your support with your purchases. And vote they did. Chick-Fil-A had record sales that day as lines stretched around the block in many locations as patrons waited patiently to grab a sandwich as this food fight escalates. As a result Chick-Fil-A had record sales.
  7. This is not the first time American citizens have been asked to weigh-in on this issue. 28 states had ballot initiatives restricting marriage to one man and one woman have all passed. The only places where same-sex marriage is recognized are in states that instituted the practice by legislation or by court mandate and not via the ballot box.
  8. Not to be outdone, proponents of same-sex unions scheduled a protest of their own for Friday Aug 3rd. There’s was a to be a “kiss day” where same-sex couples were encouraged to engage in an open display of affection at their local Chick-Fil-A store.
  9. The results were less dramatic but it is interesting to note in the above story that many of these “hateful” Chick-Fil-A stores responded to the “kiss-in” with free food and drink perhaps in the spirit of Proverbs 25:21 all without cost. What a contrast, from Wednesday to Friday. One group came to give the other came to take. BOTH groups were met with kindness and friendly service.
  10. Taking up the Proverbs 25:21 theme YouTube blogger Jackson Pearce had posted her own version of a Chick-Fil-A protest using this verse as a rallying cry to those who wished to make a statement. She proposed that they order a large water and cite Proverbs 25:21 as the reason for the request for free food and drink. Thus she too was tossed into the middle of this nationwide ‘food fight’.
  11. One follower of Jackson Pearce’s marching orders actually made it very personal in his confrontation with the friendly Chick-Fil-A employee which eventually cost him his job. But at least he got a large free drink at that hate filled eatery.
  12. Yes indeed this obviously is a hot topic. What are we to do about it? Since one side is strongly against ‘traditional marriage” and the other side is strongly in favor of ‘traditional marriage’ my guess this issue, like others before it, will find itself on the court docket of the Supreme Court; if the advocacy groups in support of ‘non-traditional marriage’ are not able to persuade enough legislators to pass legislation in favor of their position. Having a court decide the issue removes the debate from the public square (where it has been overwhelming defeated) thus eliminating the need to persuade a majority to be in favor of an issue. It is far easier to convenience 5 men and women than several million.

    Where do you stand on the issue? Is there any value in redefining what a family is? Is there any purpose in changing the definition of marriage to accommodate ‘non-traditional’ couplings? And who is it to say what then will constitute a family, or for that matter a couple in the future?

    Should marriage be honored for the stability it brings to civil society? Who is going to be the arbitrator to determine if two people of the same-sex are actually “homosexual” or just saying that they are in order to game the system? Are we that naive to believe that once special privileges are extended to couples of the same-sex that the idea to ‘feign’ ‘gayness’ in order to drink from the public wellspring is not going to occur?

    The reason given for support of ‘non-traditional’ marriage is the legal rights afforded to married couples. One of the reason’s marriage is recognized and protected is because of the rights of progeny and inheritance. Families are the reason marriage was recognized in the first place. In order to properly trace progeny and ancestry there needs to be a cohesive, reliable body of law in regards to this. Who has the right to inherit from another? Who gets custody of children? Does biological parenthood enter into this discussion? Or is it only about two adults thinking only about what is best for them?

    Traditional marriage is also the basis for the formation of new families and the transfer of Sir names. Can someone tell me whose name is used to establish a new same-sex family unit? Can a same-sex couple actual produce a new family unit? The answer to this question is no they can not naturally so therefore a ‘unnatural means’ needs to be established in order to make this happen. It becomes a construct of legalities and social engineering. Will these legal constructs and social engineering have negative effects or unforseen consequences? Most assuredly since the natural order of things is being replaced with an artificial construct. The traditional is being supplanted by non-traditional. AND for what purpose? To gain benefits otherwise reserved for the ‘traditional family unit”.

    What are some of these benefits? Are there other ways to address this issue without totally abandoning the ‘traditional family construct”?

    Let’s examine one case:

    James Morrison and Thomas Proehl met
    in college, and were in a committed relationship for nearly 25 years.

    In 2008, they got married in California.


    Then, Proehl died last year of a heart attack at the age of 46. And he didn’t have a will.


    Under Minnesota’s Defense of
    Marriage Act, or DOMA, their marriage wasn’t legally recognized in the
    state. That meant about $250,000 of assets in Proehl’s name would have
    gone to his parents — even though they wanted the assets to go to
    Morrison.


    Morrison said it’s not just his partners’ family who felt that way.


    “I worked with everyone from the
    federal government to state government to try to find resolution. What I
    found was a great deal of sympathy and empathy, but the law just
    wouldn’t allow them to resolve our estate without having to go to
    court,” said Morrison.

    This whole incident could have been avoided had Proehl drafted a will. Therefore since there are other remedies for this type of scenario should traditional marriage be destroyed so that someone can inherit someone else’s property? 

    One other argument goes to Social Security Retirement benefits. Since Social Security is a construct of legislation and is entirely controlled by those same legislators, benefits can be granted on any basis by a simple act of congress or denied as well by that same congress. Therefore it would appear that congress could make these benefits available through a legislative act that does not require redefining marriage. However I would suspect since Social Security is on shaky financial footing it is more likely survivors benefits will either be drastically reduced or eliminated in the not to distant future. Therefore is it prudent to toss out traditional marriage on such a tenuous position?

    Private retirement benefits and insurance policies can be assigned
    beneficiaries and thus eliminating the confusion. Therefore arranging ones private affairs to include a domestic partner is a viable and reasonable solution to this supposed inequity. Should we completely rearrange society for the small percentage of people who may be affected by this?

    Tax advantages.. simple fix eliminate the tax advantage deduction. Or amend the tax code to include domestic partners.  If two people file a JOINT return then they, regardless of marital status should be able to claim the JOINT FILING savings. Of course this too can be eliminated by an act of congress making this reason mute. Congress could enact legislation amending the tax code to recognize same-sex partners as legitimate for tax filing purposes. Again there is no need to redefine marriage just to garner tax savings.

    The family medical leave act is also cited as a right denied ‘nontraditional’ couples. Can’t this be remedied again by rewriting the act to accommodate ‘same-sex couples.  Why must the entirety of marriage law and precedence be tossed out to address a small fraction of cases?

    The real problems start when children are involved which is why ‘traditional marriage’ was recognized in the first place to protect the children and to establish a cohesive family structure easily identifiable and definable.

  13. Establishment of a family unit is the biblical position and the God ordained way, which I believe
    is the only reason advocates for ‘non-traditional marriage’ are raising
    such a fuss. I beg to argue if there wasn’t a biblical aspect to this
    issue would these same advocates be so vocal and intolerant in their
    opposition? They immediately went after Dan Cathy because of his
    position on traditional marriage basically because he is a Christian.
    When President Obama took the same position not so long ago, before he
    EVOLVED to his current position in order to garner votes, no one said a
    word about it and certainly no one waged an all out assault on his faith
    or beliefs. Why the double standard? Why no major uprising?  Rick
    Santorum on the other hand took the same position as President Obama and he too bore the brunt of a media onslaught much like Dan Cathy. Don’t tell me
    there isn’t a Christian bias to this argument.

    Oh yes there needs to be a national debate on this topic. There needs to be scholarly discourse and all avenues of regress need to be considered before we toss out centuries of tradition and societal history by redefining the meaning of marriage and in the process the make-up of family. Let us insist on open and honest dialogue and not demagoguery. 

    As far as Chick-Fil-A is concerned. Hey they got great chicken and the personnel is always friendly and willing to give even a cup of cold water to people who hate them. Can those of you fighting for ‘non-traditional’ marriage do the same? Are you willing to sit down and actually have a scholarly debate on this topic? Are you willing to feed your enemy? Are you willing to turn the other cheek? Are you willing to be forgiving and tolerant?