Selections from Dan Cathy Post Comments

by W.F. Price on August 3, 2012

I noticed that my post on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A sparked a bit of controversy. A lot of readers were disappointed that I don’t support Cathy without reservations. That’s understandable, because there was a pretty good reason to give him our support. The man was attacked simply for speaking his mind, and threatened with legal sanction for doing so. This is a really terrible precedent, and paints progressives/liberals in a dismal tone. I’m pretty angry at those mayors myself, as I live in a very blue city and know first-hand how bigoted people on the left can be in their own strongholds. The last thing I want to see is them using the law to oppress people who disagree with them and getting away with it.

However, I’m frustrated by the focus on gay marriage to the exclusion of other problems. The danger, as I see it, is that this will draw attention away from the real problems with marriage. For the record, I don’t think gay marriage is one of those problems, because it is a fiction for all intents and purposes. It strikes me as an empty gesture to protect marriage by focusing on the least of its problems while ignoring the others.

I thought I’d highlight a few comments and responses to show how different readers interpreted the post in different ways:

NWOslave writes:

That isn’t the point. The same forces that have destroyed marriage and the family are the same forces that promote gay marriage. You know as well as I do the people who rewarded single motherhood, promoted the welfare nanny state, took fathers away from their children, rewarded women for divorcing their husbands, encouraged the slut movement, are the same damned people.

How the hell do you clean up your backyard when everytime you sweep it out a bigger pile of crap is thrown over the fence? When a family can mean everything to everyone it means nothing at all. Let’s all just retreat a little more. One step sideways and one step back.

They are often the same people, but not always. I don’t think it would be accurate to say there’s a direct correlation between supporting marriage 2.0 divorce theft and supporting gay marriage. Not at all, in fact. Conservative Christians, I would assume, are just as supportive of mother custody and punitive alimony/child support as those on the left. Probably more so in many cases.

I agree that those who want to preserve marriage should hold the line, but going after gay marriage when there are much bigger problems is misguided. If China invaded the US with a million men, would it make sense to ignore their army in favor of securing the Mexican border?

Clydesdale writes:

Whether Mr. Cathy’s wealth and privilege make marriage easier for him is immaterial. That may well be the case. But his message is no less true.

The opposition to “Gay Marriage” has nothing to do with what gays do in private and everything to do with mocking and cheapening the very concept of marriage itself. That is why I do object when they call their relationships “marriage” and use the word to describe it. It isn’t and never will be, and that’s why those who oppose it, for whatever reason, have my support.

Mr. Cathy is publicly and prominently fighting a good and just fight at no little risk to himself, and I am hard pressed to understand how he is somehow NOT on the side of those who, perhaps like you, are innocent victims of this country’s rejection of standards and eager acceptance of the gross and obscene.

Marriage is indeed becoming a sad joke, and many, not just gays, are responsible. But to dismiss those who try to do something about it is, to me anyway, shortsighted.

I’m not dismissing Cathy for his efforts, just his effectiveness. His wealth gives him both security and power, and it would be much better spent reforming divorce and custody law than in opposing gay marriage. The man has given millions to groups opposing gay marriage. Has he ever given one red cent to groups opposing the very laws that make divorce so attractive to women? If he hasn’t, he’s done next to nothing for us.

This is why it’s fair to bring up his wealth and power — it’s relevant.

Rob writes:

The thing is, anyone thinking, should also be able to look forward a few steps dialectically.

If all forms of “marriage” are acceptable… then why isn’t presumed father-custody also a valid form of marriage and family?

Here in Canuckistan, there is evidence that gay-marriages are being short-listed for adoption and foster care, because, you know, they are oppressed by nature by not being able to produce children of their own.

So… we have “equal” families for single moms, moms about to divorce dads, lesbians and gays… does anyone see a gender left out of the picture here?

Let them write it into law, and then men should come in and demand their “equality” in having an equally recognized family – that with father custody outlined at the very beginning.

The real key to the whole thing, and to the MRM mallaise, IS father custody. Let them have thirty kinds of “families” so long as father-custody marriage is also part of the package. And then let the ponies that win the race lead society – and whose ponies do you think that will be?

It appears, in today’s climate, that the only type of “family” that is not acceptable is the one where the father is undeniably attached to the custody of his children. All other types of families are “equal” but father-custody marriage is as alien as Martians. Sad, since this was the norm for millenia up until 150 years ago.

Yes, supporting an increase in father custody would make an enormous difference. What are Cathy’s views on that? I get the impression they’re something like this:

“The man should be at work providing for the wife and children.”

Nothing wrong with that view, unless the wife has no accountability, and under today’s marriage regime she doesn’t. Does Cathy support holding women legally accountable for their marriage vows? If so, you wouldn’t know it from what he’s said.

Zed writes:

Which kills you more dead – being gored by an angry rhinoceros, or crushed by an lumbering elephant?

“Absence of malice” is a legalistic defense for journalists, but good intentions will lead one straight to hell just about as quickly as good intentions.

Closing the barn door 3 decades after the horse has bolted accomplishes nothing.

Let’s see Cathy put some money behind repealing the Bradley Amendment, and pushing for father custody in at least 50% of all divorces, and maybe some of us who watched guys like him stand around with their heads and thumbs up their asses until we got to the point where we are now, will start to regard him as something other than a useless idiot.

Lots of good and impassioned comments on this post. I hope it got some people thinking about what’s at stake here, and what will work to effect change for the better.

I view it as my duty to inform, and if that includes occasionally writing a piece that isn’t popular with everyone, so be it. I can only hope that it helped people see another point of view, and maybe think of things in a new light.

{ 44 comments… read them below or add one }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: