Mero Moment: Chick-fil-A and Intolerance

If you want to get a better understanding of what the world would look like if homosexual advocates had their way, recent events are a showcase.

First, the president of Chick-fil-A came out publicly in support of traditional marriage and for that opinion he’s been pilloried for being a bigot. He said, “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Too bad the Lord doesn’t have a say in Beantown where Boston’s Mayor Tom Menino replied that Chick-fil-A isn’t welcome. He said, “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population.” But, evidently, it’s OK in Boston for a population to discriminate against a business. Someone needs to tell this guy that the founders of Chick-fil-A aren’t Yankees.

The truth is that the “gay rights” movement isn’t about rights. It’s about its quest for moral approbation. It’s about punishing anyone who tells them, even hints at, what they do is wrong. It’s a fight over the most fundamental aspects of life such as our ability to reason and to be purposeful as human beings.

There’s a reason why the initial argument over sexual orientation for so many decades has devolved into arguments over free speech: Persons living an open life of homosexuality can’t bear to hear anyone question their personal choices – so much so, in fact, that they can’t even bear to think of homosexual behavior as a choice. It must be innate from birth, that’s the only way they, and many of the people who love them dearly, can cope with this behavioral inconsistency. The onus is never on them; it’s always on other people – which, of course, is a very deep characteristic among the dysfunctional.

Down at the University of Texas an associate professor of sociology, Mark Regnerus, has studied family structure and published some recent findings in the peer-reviewed journal Social Science Research. Every major media outlet has weighed in on this case because, horror of all horrors, his research shows that “gay parents” don’t stack up so well against a real mom and dad. The professor’s methodology has been wrung through the wringer and back again and the verdict is in: There just aren’t enough homosexual couples parenting children to draw the conclusions he draws. In other words, the universe of samples is too small to make any judgments.

Fair enough. Let’s call the matter unsettled. But what do we do with the Prop 8 court case and the dozens of other pro-homosexual court cases that accept the idea as fact that there’s “no difference” between gay parents and straight parents? The legal problem for cases largely decided by this assumption is self-evident: If there aren’t enough homosexual couples parenting children to make a solid sample for Professor Regnerus’ study, how can there be a big enough universe of samples for all of these other studies? Oh well, my real point is that homosexual activists are threatening to strip Professor Regnerus of his academic credentials because they don’t like what his research showed.

This is the world of “gay rights.” It’s oppressive and intolerant. It’s anti-democratic. If you disagree with them, they will lash out at you, even try to take away your livelihood. They say that anyone who disagrees with them about sexual orientation or same-sex marriage is a bigot – and we all know that bigots don’t have rights; they just have opinions that differ from us. And we all know that opinions different from our own are wrong opinions, right?

The Democratic National Committee is poised to amend its national platform to include a plank on same-sex marriage now that President Obama has come out of the closet on the issue. Maybe that plank should just say, “Opinions that differ with ours are now a crime.”

For Sutherland Institute, I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.