Hypocracy Goes Both Ways (Pun Intended)

I've been engaging in some pretty healthy and hearty debate over the whole Chick-Fil-A controversy these last few days, and I'm feeling the need to make a concrete statement about it. I find myself focusing not on whether or not Chick-Fil-A's owner is or is not correct in his views, but rather on his opponents' reactions and their apparent expressions as to whether he is or is not entitled to his views.

Let me be clear about my own views on the issue, just so there can be no doubt as to where I'm coming from: The fact of the matter is that I am Catholic and I believe in the traditional definition of marriage. HOWEVER, I am also an ardent supporter of and believer in the United States Constitution. Said Constitution says, in part "No state shale make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1) This begs the question of what constitutes privileges and immunities in regards to marriage?

According to the Wikipedia article "Rights and Responsibilities of Marriages in the United States", which appears to be well-referenced with primary source information, there are approximately 1150 rights and responsibilities recognized by the federal government in a marriage. While the religious definition of a marriage has existed for thousands of years, one could make the argument that these approximately 1150 rights and responsibilities (or privileges and immunities) are what constitute the civil definition of marriage in the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States)

IF one makes the argument that these rights and responsibilities constitute civil marriage in the United States, then one has to ask what constitutes an abridgment of these privileges and immunities. One could certainly argue that not being legally allowed to confer these privileges and immunities upon whomever one chooses, regardless of that person's gender, would constitute a violation of the privileges and immunities clause above-mentioned. IF that argument is valid, then that would tend to make defining civil marriage as being only between two people of opposite gender unconstitutional. SO, while I do personally believe in the religious definition of marriage, I do concede, with clear conscience, that it is POSSIBLE that preventing same-sex couples from entering into civil marriage may be an unconstitutional violation of their rights.

That being said, I turn towards the point of my diatribe--the way people treat those with whom they disagree. As anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the news the past week or so can see, there was a massive turn-out in support of the owner of Chick-Fil-A and also some heated opposition to him and his views. To those who went out and bought some "chikin" on August 1, I say "God bless you." You were standing up for what you believe in and supporting someone who feels the same way you do. To those who picketed, protested or went to the kiss-in on August 3, I say "God bless you" to you as well--you were also standing up for your beliefs as is your constitutional right, and I would defend that right to the death.

What I have a problem with, is the people on the left who spew hatred in the name of tolerance and claim to be morally superior to those on the far right who are just as guilty of hatred. Specifically, four things come to mind--the first three are the comments by the mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco who basically threatened to use legal means to prevent Chick-Fil-A from doing business in their cities. To them, I cite the same US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (First Amendment) and the above-cited Fourteenth Amendment. To prevent a company from doing business in a town simply because of the religious beliefs of the owner would be a flagrant violation of these rights, and is no different than prohibiting someone from doing business in a city because of their sexual orientation, skin color or any other discriminatory reason.

The fourth thing that comes to mind is the reaction of certain people in what I, for want of a better description, will call the "pro-gay" community (I don't like using that term but I can't think of a better one at the moment). Not everybody who supports the pro-gay viewpoint has acted like this, obviously, but the ones that are are pissing me off--folks who are basically saying that everyone who does not support the pro-gay viewpoint is automatically a bigot or a homophobe, etc. One thing that really caught my eye was a comment that was posted on Facebook by a friend, where some celebrity said "If you're against gay marriage, just be honest, put a scarlet 'H' on your shirt, and say 'I'm a homophobe'". So, dude lemme get this straight--you're calling anyone who is opposed to gay marriage a name and judging them based upon a rush to judgment of their beliefs? Isn't that exactly what you're accusing THEM of doing?? Bigotry in the name of freedom is still bigotry. While actively discriminating against anyone is wrong, there are people whose interpretation of their Christian beliefs falls in such a way that they feel obligated to support organizations that defend "traditional" families--as long as those groups are not actively harming anyone (I know there have been reports that some of Chick-Fil-A's have done such things but I have not found any independent proof), then your hating them for their beliefs is no less wrong and no less bigoted than someone hating you for your beliefs. In short, hypocrisy (and bigotry) go both ways (pun intended).