Gay Chickens

Time to try and be rational about a topic that has attached itself to the hottest button in American politics (gay marriage and its equivalents, civil unions, et al).

Let us just ponder for a second on the tangible changes that would occur if homosexual men and women were allowed to marry in the United States. What do I mean by tangible? I mean changes that we can touch, (figuratively) changes that would ACTUALLY affect the day to day lives of the average American. Wait, the average American is not gay (speaking in terms of majority/minority), so, actually, it WOULDN'T effect the average American.

Wait. This cannot be true!

Wouldn't there be gays throughout the streets dancing around in their fanciful gayness?

Well, there might be, but aren't there already a few of those doing that, and many others who don't bother to act differently than a normal person, because, in fact, other than their sexual preference they see themselves as NORMAL people?

This seems to be true, I see men holding hands in the park, women walking arm in arm giving each other side-long glances of love while strolling down the street, and gay marriage is not even legal!

So, what exactly does legalizing gay marriage mean?

Rights. This is about rights. This is about being protected when things go wrong. This about being able to share in the same benefits that heterosexual married couples get to share. This is about being able to be with the person they love, while hurting NO ONE, and being able to do it while getting the same rights as any one else.

This is not about religion. Church and state are separate for a very specific reason. Many early Americans had escaped religious persecution in England and sought freedom to believe what they would like.

Believe it or not, if gays can marry legally, you may still go about your life thinking they are not married.

It is not important whether or not you think gays should be married in the eyes of God. It only matters whether they should get the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples who pledge to live/love together get (cause let us be honest and frank here, not all marriages are based on love, whether gay, straight or otherwise, there are people who do not understand love, or at the minimum struggle to understand it).

What rights?

Tax breaks for one. Married couples get tax breaks.
Shared health care benefits.
The right to be considered "family" when their loved one is laying sick on their deathbed
Being able to take 'family leave' when their spouse might be sick and not get docked in pay or vacation time
Auto and home insurance 'family' discounts

and many others you can read here

All these things could be put in place, and the average American would not even bat an eyelash.

And do you know why?

Because allowing gays to have those rights, does not effect the average American. Those who oppose gay marriage are fighting for the ideal of marriage. The problem is, that ideal has been shattered a thousand times over time. This is not a recent problem. Sure, divorce rates are up, but that is only because now it is OK in our society for a woman to divorce a man who is beating her and her children, when it once was not. Divorce rates are up because it is OK for a woman to divorce a man who has cheated on her once or twice or many times over, when it once was not. Marriage has not weakened, no, bad marriages have been exposed when they once were not.

The ideal of marriage is something we SHOULD strive for, however, allowing the ideal to include same-sex marriages, should not change that.

A marriage should be a covenant between two people whether in religious context or not who have pledged their love and loyalty to each other above all. Nothing more, nothing less.

The question I keep asking myself is 'what in f*ck's sake does this have to do with chicken?'

Insert Restaurant-A.

Restaurant-A is a privately owned company, owned in majority by someone who is not the 'average American' by default. This owner makes gobs of money hand over fist by selling average Americans waist-expanding fried chicken and waffle fries (don't get me wrong, love a good waffle fry, but let us not pretend for a second that any of their food is really nutritious or good for you, however that would be a topic for another day, and not particularly important for the topic at hand).

Restaurant-A's owner makes lots of money and he is entitled to spend his money however he chooses. He can spend his money on a pink donkey. He can buy a space station. However, he cannot do anything illegal with it (well, he CAN, assuming he isn't caught.. oh you get my point). Basically if he wants to support the effort to keep the status of same-sex marriage, well... the same, he rightfully may do so.

Now, I am customer B. I can do whatever I want with my money. I think Restaurant-A's food is gross, but I'm on a long car trip and there are two restaurant options. Restaurant-A and McRestaurant. Admittedly, these are both awful options and I'm probably just better off taking ex-lax and saving myself spending $15 on two value meals for my wife and myself.. All the same, I am inclined to eat. While in the past I have preferred Restaurant-A's choices to McRestaurant offerings, I am compelled to eat at McRestaurant because I disagree with Resaurant-A's open stance on same-sex marriage. Am I making a choice based on a simple bias? Sure. Do I even know if McRestaurant's board of trustees feels the same or different than me on the topic? Nope. But that is my choice.

Customer C thinks that people of the same sex should not marry. Customer C chooses to eat at Restaurant-A. Good for him. He exercised his right to choose something.

These are all examples of the freedoms we have in America.

These are all examples of logical ways of supporting or opposing things you feel passionately.

However, the problem is what is right for you, the individual, is not inherently right for the country as a whole.

This is a difficult concept to wrap my mind around. I want what is right for me to be what is right for the country. It just makes sense.

However, it is wrong.

Once we start applying how we feel about a topic toward the way our country should be governed, we have committed ourselves to a myopic view of the government. A single-minded view. Thinking that the government should mirror the values you have for yourself, disregards someone with different values. Some values should be clear. We should universally value life (we could debate the definition of life, but this isn't a debate on abortion). We value the right to love (others) and happiness. Having these universal values create the tenets of law. However, when what once seemed universal no longer is, it ceases to become a universal value. If perhaps once it was valued that a marriage should be between a man and a woman and ONLY a man and a woman, it was a prudent law to establish. However, once there is a rise to change this law our laws will change.

If you believe in democracy, then you believe you have the right to sit on either side.

And you of course do.

But this is not about what is in the bible. Nor is it about what we view as right.
This is in fact about rights. For human beings who love each other. Often upholding the ideal of marriage, whether or not their country says they are allowed to enjoy the benefits of being married.

And so I come back to a previous question.

How would a change in the legality of same-sex marriage affect you, personally, day-to-day?

And what the hell does it have to do with chicken?