Category Archives: marriage

Who’s the REAL Chicken?

OK, for the record, this is NOT a post about the “radical homosexual agenda” or whether gay marriage should be legal or not.  This is a post about freedom to do business according to one’s conscience, and freedom to express views with which others may not agree.   [Please note: neither I nor any of my family work for this company.]

Yes, I’m talking about all the ridiculous, inflated fracas about Chick-fil-A, a national fast food chain whose owner makes no secret of the fact that he supports traditional marriage. In a recent interview with The Baptist Press, he was explicit:

We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

And that’s ALL he said, people.

Company president Dan Cathy did NOT make disparaging remarks about the LGBT community, offer political statements about the validity of gay marriage, make any statement about hiring homosexuals or serving them.  Chick-fil-A has a fixed policy of being closed on Sundays to ensure their employees a day a rest.  Other than that, the most radical thing they do is refuse to sell beef–the source of their long-running PR campaign featuring spokescows who urge us to “Eat Mor Chikn”.

Here’s their statement from their official Facebook page:

The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.

Chick-fil-A is a family-owned and family-led company serving the communities in which it operates. From the day Truett Cathy started the company, he began applying biblically-based principles to managing his business. For example, we believe that closing on Sundays, operating debt-free and devoting a percentage of our profits back to our communities are what make us a stronger company and Chick-fil-A family.

Our mission is simple: to serve great food, provide genuine hospitality and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.

Only now, in today’s hyper-polarized, overly-politicized society can affirmation of a biblical belief be equated to hating something or someone. Even 20 years ago, this news would have generated barely a peep. Now? It’s instant ‘high dudgeon’, plus some.

Enter the Jim Henson Company,  fearing to be tarred with the same family-friendly brush as the chicken vendor.  (Who IS the target audience for Henson Co.’s many products, one must ask?)   So Henson has pulled its toys from Chick-fil-A kids’ meals, thus shooting themselves in their own promotional foot in order to make a loud statement about Chick-fil-A’s alleged intolerance…and their own obvious intolerance.  Was Chick-fil-A putting disclaimers in the kids’ sacks, warning them that Henson is an ‘inclusive’ company?  Nope.  Did they refuse to carry the toys because of Henson’s pro-LGBT policy?  No again. But the company has made charitable contributions to not-for-profit organizations that Henson dubs “anti-gay”.

Notice how polemic language works?  It turns a positive statement into a negative one:  “PRO-life” or “ANTI-abortion”?   “PRO-family” or “ANTI-gay”?  In most cases, the positive statement is much broader (more inclusive, if you will) than the negative one!

Next, enter Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston, who is threatening to bar Chick-fil-A from getting a license to do business in the city famous for its Freedom Trail…because he personally feels that this company should not be free to say what it believes in.

Again, please note where the judgmental, harsh, intolerant, hyperbolic over-reaction is coming from:  not from the conservative family-oriented business.  No, no: it’s coming from the people who are screaming Tolerance, Openness, and Fairness.  Because obviously, their definition of Freedom of Speech is:  “You have a right to say whatever I agree with.”

Obama’s latest: How to hijack a wedding

Obama wedding registry is one turkey of an idea…

Retailers need to entice, lure, romance their customers, as JTR noted about retail giant IKEA, and their maze-like, trance-inducing stores, where people buy what they never intended to before they wandered in.

But when you’re the president, apparently you feel you’ve earned the right to just ask anyone for money, any time.  Alice Roosevelt once  famously said that her presidential father, Teddy Roosevelt, wanted to be “the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.”   But she was talking about his need for attention.  Obama, on the other hand, just wants all your presents.   Thanks to a Facebook friend for directing me to this article at  I’ll confess I still didn’t believe it until I actually visited Obama/Biden’s campaign website.   This is the actual text.  I am not making this up:

Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up?

Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.

Yup.  Who needs a toaster anyway, when one could have the satisfaction of donating to the Obamaniac re-election fund?  I wonder if those marriages will last as long as his presidency?

No, I don’t “Like” this post at all…

The Heritage Foundation posted a graph on its Facebook site, showing purported growth in government spending on welfare between 1964 and 2011:

Predictably, the post has received 1,600+ “Likes” and 200 or so comments, most of them on the order of my “zoo” comments of Friday.  But while it’s easy to say that the poor are being given too much, I’ll admit it’s hard to pinpoint where or how to cut back without punishing the people who most deserve help:  the infants and children who cannot help themselves.

It’s interesting to read the talkback from liberals who say it’s “lunacy”  to try to compare 1964 spending to today.  ‘Our population is several times greater, cost of living is higher, average wage is higher, etc’…which is true, but beside the point.  The graph, if I understand it correctly, is an ironic picture of several generations’ worth of “war on welfare” intending to cut spending on benefits to the poor.  We can see how well that has worked out.  But I’m not so much concerned with the big picture from the last 50 years.  We can argue all day about “inflation-adjusted dollars” and what that really means.

No, the alarm bells went off for me when I went to the U.S. Government Spending website and found that spending on welfare to families and children (mainly nutrition supplements like food stamps, WIC and school lunch programs, as far as I can tell) has more than DOUBLED in the past four years, from $60.7 billion to 113.5 billion.   How is that possible?  Does that mean that the cost of food has doubled?  That the number of people receiving assistance has doubled? More likely, it’s safe to say that more people are needing help and food costs more…

Still, the mind boggles at the thought of further increases in welfare spending.  Looking at this chart, I wonder:  how many people begin to receive assistance and simply never stop?   And why is that?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that 41% of babies born in 2009 were to unmarried women?   How about this statistic:  “In 2010, 9.9 million single moms were living with kids under 18 in the United States, up from 3.4 million in 1970.”

I could rant predictably about the decline in morals, and the cultural climate which has made it normal to have a baby if you want to, regardless of whether there are two parents committed to raising it to adulthood.  But the fact is self-evident that while the population of our country has doubled since 1970, the number of single moms has tripled.  What once was embarrassing at best, severely stigmatized at worst, is now common and acceptable, and–more significantly–practical.  The government’s willingness to support single mothers and their children has made it possible for any woman who feels like it to have a baby and raise it without the necessity of a partner who supports or helps to support her.  Instead of rewarding stable family units who are self-sufficient, and who raise statistically healthier, happier and less troubled kids, it seems that the prize goes to the unambitious young high school drop-out who has learned to bilk the system and is content to live from hand to mouth indefinitely.

Of course we do not want to live in a society which does not show care and concern for innocent children.  And  since the moral pendulum has swung so wildly to the left…I fear it will require more that Solomon’s wisdom to find a solution to our skyrocketing welfare costs which rewards responsibility and hard work, without penalizing infants and children who had no say in the matter.

I don’t think I can criticize the failed welfare reforms unless I have a better idea of how to cut such spending without endangering children.  It seems to me that this is a matter for prayer.

A Cynical Opportunist

“….an overwhelming majority of respondents, 67%, think the president backed same-sex marriage last week “mostly for political reasons,” while only 24% think he did it “mostly because he thinks it is right.” This column agrees with the 24% more than the 67%, but in any case Obama has managed a neat trick: He has managed to look like a cynical opportunist while taking an unpopular position.”

>>James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2012


This article is a great review of the past week’s events and the resulting political fallout thus far, but you’ll need to go over to wsjonline for the entire column.



Brought to you by: The Obama Campaign 2012

Married to Cynicism

“The cynics are right nine times out of ten.”


The worst kept secret in the history of secrets is finally out: President Obama is in favor of gay marriage. Whoopdedoo. But, if you want to read something a bit different on this, check out National Review Online. They seem to believe that Obama’s evolution is not, as yet, complete. Given his track record, they’re probably right.

Other than NRO, there are still a couple aspects of this that I’m generally not seeing, the first being: Obama was actually for gay marriage, before he was against it, which obviously was prior to Wednesday’s “shocker” that he is for it…..again. Back in 2009, Politico revealed this:

Obama in 1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”


I see a bunch of timelines concerning Obama’s ‘evolution’ on this issue, but they almost all ignore this little tidbit as if it didn’t occur. How does an adult in their mid-30s change their mind on one deeply held belief to its exact opposite, and then 16 years later….change it back? Perhaps this is one of those Inconvenient Truths I’ve heard so much about.


The second item that seems to be getting drowned out by all the hoopla was from the abcnews blog: “The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own.”

So Obama suddenly believes in federalism when it comes to marriage laws,….why, exactly? It’s not as if he follows that same logic with other issues.


If Obama has endorsed federalism and believes that states have the right to define marriage, then why doesn’t he support the ability of states to extricate themselves from Obamacare? Why don’t states have the right to dictate their immigration laws? And does he “personally” believe that states should be able decide the issue of abortion? Roe v. Wade exists, but so does the Defense of Marriage Act.

A cynic might say that this whole issue is yet another in a conga-line of distractions that the White House seems intent on parading before us. A cynic wold say that Obama is desperate to talk about anything other than the economy, unemployment, our debt crisis, Obamacare and a host of economic disasters that his administration has bestowed upon us. A cynic would say this revelation was for purely political reasons. A cynic would say that good ol’ “Foot-In-Mouth” Biden forced Obama into doing this waaaay earlier than he would have liked.

Not me. No, sir….I’m no cynic.

‘Cause I know how he really feels: