The War of Words

Last Monday on the way to my school to do a bit of cataloging before the new school year begins, I stopped at Chick-fil-A for lunch. This was after the big brouhaha began over the company's president, Dan Cathy, statements supporting traditional marriage, and before the Wednesday "Support Chick-fil-A Day." I had my trusty cane to fight my way through the rabid protesters that were supposed to be demonstrating for "tolerance," but there weren't any protesters there. The parking lot was full, but I found one handicap parking stall. I had to wend my way through the double row of drive through customers to get to the door which was held open for me by a former student who works there. Inside, all the registers were three deep with customers placing orders, and there was standing room only in the eating area.

While I was waiting to order my chicken strips, I looked over the faces of the twenty or so employees, all busily and politely serving their customers, though undoubtedly a little hassled by the crush of people in front of them. The mix of men and women employees were a range of high school to near senior in age, and in color, white to black with a rich palate of browns in between. A rather diverse group, if you ask me. There was no way of telling if any of the employees, or customers for that matter, were homosexual persons, or whether anyone present was for or against same-sex marriage. No one was wearing or carrying a sign to support anything. The customers just wanted their lunch, and the employees just wanted to do their jobs and to collect their pay for doing those jobs. This was two days before the Chick-fil-A "eat-in," and anyway, this business is always crowded when ever I happen to visit there.

To me this brouhaha has all to do with the First Amendment right to have and express your opinions without the fear of reprisals and sanctions by the government, either federal, state or local, i.e. Boston, Chicago, et al. This has nothing to do with whether same-sex marriage is a right or not. (Marriage is not a Constitutional right; freedom of speech is.) The liberal progressives give great lip service to freedom of speech, but what they mean is, as defined by their actions: you may say what you want as long as what you say agrees with the politically correct liberal progressive opinion. All persons with a differing opinion will be ridiculed, vilified, mocked, marginalized, called "racist" or "homophobic" or any number of filthy, vulgar epithets, a la Dan Savage, the pseudo anti-bullying guru, Bill Maher, pseudo comedian, or any number liberal progressive politicians, actors, pundits and media personalities.

I fully expect some tolerant, inclusive, lover of diversity to hurl a silly, meaningless epithet in my direction because of the preceding three paragraphs. What epithet? Why the one that is second only to "RACIST" in the verbal arsenal of liberal progressives: "HOMOPHOBIC." This is a silly word that its users seem to think means something it does not. Now if you say I am acrophobic, I will agree with you. I do have an unreasonable fear of heights. But I am not homophobic. I do not fear (GR. phobia) sameness (GR homo); nor, as some less informed people think, man (L. homo). Not only do I not fear, I do not hate, the real implication of those who throw the word at any and all who disagree with them. It is true that I do not approve of homosexual practices or support same-sex marriage, but I also do not approve of or support heterosexual fornication, adultery, prostitution, or perverse sexual practices. Does that make me "heterophobic?" No, both words are silly and meaningless. I do approve of and support chastity before marriage and fidelity after the marriage of a man and a woman; and I still have the Constitutional right to express that opinion without fear of any government within the United States exercising unrighteous dominion against me. We are not yet the Peoples' Democratic Republic of America.