Chick Fil A Controversy Considered

A chicken sandwich fast food chain has taken over my Facebook feed. Sounds pretty odd, doesn't it?

Here's a commentary I wrote a few days ago on Facebook in response to the Chick Fil A controversy.

Never heard of Chick Fil A two weeks ago. Would love to go back to that time. The fact that a Christian conservative billionaire who thinks selling chicken sandwiches is "the Lord's work" comes out against same sex marriage isn't surprising at all. A fair number of fast food corporations are run by known bigots. Tom Monaghan of Dominoes Pizza instantly comes to mind. It's not that special folks. F
urthermore, Cathy knows his main audience. The Bible Belt. In my opinion, he did a masterful job of tapping into the angst of Christians who believe that they are somehow being oppressed these days. All this attention is making millions for the company, and while it's nice to see other companies publicly stepping back from association with Chick Fil A, there's entirely too much of a mega distraction circus feel to all of this.

So, here's what I think. Why not use this as an opportunity to say to hell with fast food giants? The famous Chick Fil A chicken sandwich contains 16 grams of fat and 1300mg of sodium. Think of how many millions of factory farm chickens have suffered and died to provide sandwiches that contribute to heart disease and all sorts of other chronic, debilitating illnesses? This is the norm for fast food: factory farms and disease producing products. Furthermore, fast food chains are a product themselves of diminished communities, desperately overworked people, crass capitalism that has bankrupted the many at the expense of the few, and an education system that places more value on the ability to take standardized tests than teaching real life, health producing skills like cooking, gardening, and foraging.

There's a great need to expand debates like this. Because simply slamming and boycotting - which has gone on for years on a smaller scale with Chick Fil A - hasn't made much of a dent in their bottom line. And it's also a little too easy for all of this to slip into company X is great because they support gay rights, while company Y is evil because they don't. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Many of the same companies coming out in favor of gay rights these days (knowing that it will probably pad their bottom line, mind you), are also the same ones that basically own Wall Street, the White House, Congress, and our State legislatures. So, while I support any positive affirmation for GLBTQ rights, I think it's vitally important that the lens remain wide, and that folks keep their critical thinking skills fine tuned. End of rant.

At almost the same time, unbeknownst to me until later, fellow Zen blogger Algernon wrote a similar post on his Facebook page. Here's the last two paragraphs.

Opt out of fast food (except for emergency snacks) altogether. Explore (or re-discover) the creative and sexy joys of domestic cuisine. Cook and invite people over (without their iPay electronic devices) and have slow, sensible conversations over good food and wine about what makes a healthy community, what kind of friends are good to have in one's life, and maybe (as you feel comfortable with your company) get a little more direct about the issues that got you riled at the nasty fast food chain in the first place.

I'm not being cute here. I really think this is a more direct way of participating in the world and influencing it, even if only by a degree or two. This seems like a valid and important form of activism-and-community-building to me. (It might also change you some, if you are listening and not just persuading.) There is something about people who are quietly, fearlessly true to their hearts -- and a good dinner. They can be very memorable.

Gay Marriage: A Conservative Response to Conservative Bigotry

I have noticed over the past week or so that a good dozen of my friends on Facebook have signed on to a group stating, "I will vote No on the marriage amendment." Like many other U.S. states in recent years, Minnesota will have a measure on the ballot next year trying to codify in the State Constitution heterosexual marriage as the sole legitimate form of marriage. It's been one of the lynchpin issues of the religious right in this nation, who are hellbent on keeping the GLBTQ community oppressed, marginalized, and vilified.

While I appreciate the sentiment of the Facebook page, and articles like this one, my views on this issue are more complex, and not easily measured by a yea or nay vote.

First off, I plan to vote No on the ballot measure next year because using the Constitution to restrict people's rights is astoundingly stupid in my view.

However, here's where I diverge from the norm.

The pro-Gay marriage movement has always felt like a conservative response to a conservative attack on the GLBTQ community. One of the underlying assumptions being that once gay folks can marry like straight folks currently do, things will be better. Which is true in one sense, but not necessarily true for those who aren't, for whatever reason, interested in getting married.

And those reasons are far more diverse than many of us tend to imagine. Some people are simply players, or afraid of commitment. Some are just exploring. Some haven't healed from past relationships. I know older folks who want to be in an intimate relationship, but have no interest in going through another marriage ceremony. Some are deeply invested in polyamory, and have found ways to sustain long term relationships with multiple people.

One of the driving points behind the Gay Marriage movement has been that gay folks deserve to have the same social rights and privileges bestowed upon married straight couples. And the way I see it, gaining legal gay marriage will certainly open the door to many more people, it doesn't address some of those examples I listed above which can fall under the "long term, committed relationship" category.

There's another issue though. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and plenty of people for a variety of reasons aren't interested in doing religious ceremonies. Furthermore, while I deplore the bigotry of these conservative Judeo-Christian institutions pushing for things like marriage amendments, I feel a strange sympathy towards their general fear of being controlled by the government. The intertwined nature of marriage's current relationship with civil society is problematic when you consider desires for a separation of church and state. At least, it's problematic in my view.

It seems to me that a better course of action would be to leave marriage to the spiritual/religious sphere, where those of us who are members of said communities can choose to partake of these ceremonies as a part of our commitment to our partners.

And as such, the government's role would then be to offer civil union to all who wish to make a commitment to another, with all the financial and social rights, privileges and responsibilities that currently are tied to marriage.

This would open the door for more folks in general, remove the church and state marriage tangle, and also, I believe, would lessen the intensity of opposition from the religious right. Certainly, there are plenty of people who will argue that offering civil unions is still an "affront" to marriage, and I doubt there's anything legally that will get these folks to either stand down or change their minds. However, when the leaders of conservative church X or mosque Y aren't feeling like the government is going to come in and shut them down for not performing a marriage ceremony between two men (that's the standard fantasy), I bet some of them will move on to other issues. It's much easier right now to rally the right wing troops when amongst their worries is one of being told by the government what they can and can't do.

So, I'm not sure what to do about that Facebook group. To join or not join, that is the question.(Not a terribly serious question, but it is the one that led me to this post.) Your thoughts?