This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon: Larry Levin and Steve Pick got to know each other through a fantasy baseball league. Larry is publisher of the Jewish Light. Steve is a long-time music critic, host of Sound Salvation on KDHX 88.1 FM, and the tallest employee at Euclid Records. Larry and Steve see eye-to-eye on many things, but not when it comes to the controversy involving Chick-fil-A.
Larry: Steve, a lot of folks who support a right to gay marriage have come down strong on Chick-fil-A because its ownership not only opposes the right but also has given aid to groups that actively oppose it. Many have advocated that those who support gay marriage should actively boycott the chain to demonstrate their displeasure. While anyone can certainly refuse to eat there, I’m not sure that a boycott is such a great idea. It once again creates a construct by which those of different political stripes can just retreat to their own corners, shout out the other side, and call it a day. Is that the best way to engender constructive dialogue and positive social change?
Steve: Larry, the groups which Chick-fil-A has donated to include the Family Research Group and especially the Marriage & Family Unit. These groups have actively campaigned to spread anti-gay messages specifically against same-sex marriage ballot measures in states around the country, and have thus contributed disproportionately to the denial of civil rights.
There were similar groups who fought hard to deny civil rights to African-Americans in the late 50s and early 60s. Boycotts were a part of the movement then, and they can be a part of the movement now. Obviously, boycotting a fast-food chicken chain which has long been known to be affiliated with right wing causes isn’t going to achieve social change by itself. But it is starting dialogues all around the country, not between those who support gay marriage and those who adamantly oppose it, but between those who support it and those who haven’t really thought about it. Social change will not come because those on the left beat those on the right, but because those who haven’t been concerned at all become mad at the mean-spirited opposition to allowing all citizens the same rights.
Larry: Dialogue connotes that those who disagree with each other are talking constructively. I feel a bit like we’re engaging in parallel play in a sandbox, engaged in expressing our various agendas without truly listening to one another. In that context, those who, in your words, haven’t thought about it are going to be solicited by competing viewpoints.
What I’m worried about is that the secondary issues, like whether folks have the right to boycott (they do) and whether governments can deny permits for restaurant owners whose political views they don’t like (they can’t), will drown out the focus on advancing the cause of marriage equality, which is the true goal line issue.
As for Chick-fil-A supporting the Family Research Group, yes, they’re anathema to me on these issues, but this exercise is like playing Political LinkedIn…remember Reverend Wright? That didn’t go all too well for President Obama.
Steve: Interesting points, Larry, and let’s see if I can respond to each of them. I understand the feeling that people aren’t talking constructively. But at the same time, I think it’s not right to assume equivalency on two sides of every issue. I believe the majority of people believe in fairness, and this division between those who oppose same sex marriage and those who support it is very clearly based on one side being inclusive, while the other wants to deny rights to some which belong to others. I put my faith in the average person to come down on the side of justice when all is said and done.
I don’t know whether the secondary issues you mention will drown out the goal line issue or not. Frankly, I believe exposing bigotry is always a good thing. When I saw old friends of mine on Facebook cheering for their chance to eat at Chick-fil-A, I got sick to my stomach. I suspect others did, too.
You’re absolutely right that boycotting is a tool that everybody is allowed to use – and I believe the anti-gay forces went after Oreo cookies on that front just a few months ago. You’re equally right that politicians have no business trying to prevent Chick-fil-A or any other company from setting up shop simply because they support reprehensible causes.
As for the Political Linked-In game, first of all, kudos for the image. It’s impossible to keep track of all the corporations we encounter in our daily lives who have supported something with which we disagree, but that doesn’t mean when we have an emotional response to one, we shouldn’t go with it. Right now, I think I would choke on a Chick fil-A sandwich, and probably need to go out and buy me an Oreo.
Larry: No, you’re quite right that there’s no equivalency between and among those who advocate for equality and those who don’t. And emotional responses can indeed be good; they often are what drive us in furtherance of social change. But the tactics of affecting change vary depending on the context.
Keep in mind the relative newness of this issue in public debate versus its cultural background. By that I mean, the notion of marriage being exclusively a heterosexual realm occupied roughly the first two and a quarter centuries of our existence in the United States. In little more than a decade of serious discussion on the matter, we’ve come a pretty long way; not far enough by any stretch, but a long way.
Contrast that with it taking a century and a half to achieve women’s suffrage, and almost a century AFTER the Civil War to eliminate government-sanctioned segregation. I actually am pretty blown away that during a time of conservative ascension in this nation, the public has changed quite dramatically on this issue. That is largely due to the bravery of so many members of the LGBT community coming out and their friends and families thus being able to see and recognize their needs, rights and aspirations.
To ascribe evil so readily to those who haven’t come on board is somewhat unfair. Yes, some of the opponents have used unconscionable tactics, which I resent and deplore. But Chick-fil-A to my knowledge serves everyone with respect and courtesy; doesn’t have any significant issue of legal discrimination (there was one report about them having been sued about ten times for discrimination, which for a company its size is quite frankly on the low side), and contributes to a variety of social service and education charitable causes. People have asked me why I’m “defending” Chick-fil-A, and I say I’m not. I’m defending our need as a culture to find common cause on social issues and build outward, rather than staking turf in our respective corners and hissing and seething toward the middle.
Steve: Larry, you’re a hard man to argue with, what with all the reasonableness and the admirable goals and whatnot. I think social change moves in fits and starts, and sometimes you have to go with the flow when something looks capable of striking a chord with the public. It’s not as though gay rights advocates spent a lot of time thinking marriage should be one of the first goals, but once it became a major battleground, the obviousness of its justice worked in its favor.
You’re right that it hasn’t been an issue as long as women’s suffrage was, or government sanctioned racial segregation. But those movements used tactics which were divisive, too. Would there have been a Woolworth’s Lunch Counter Appreciation Day if Mike Huckabee had been around back in that era?
To be clear, I don’t believe the people opposed to gay marriage are evil, but I do believe they are responding out of fears which have no basis in reality. I can find common cause with those people on the basis of our shared humanity, but when it comes to the question of allowing all people the same rights and privileges, it’s hard to see a way that we can just agree to disagree, or wait until enough time has passed. Maybe a boycott of Chick-fil-A won’t change the minds of those whose hearts have been hardened by selective Biblical interpretations. But historically, those who have been denied their rights have only gained them through loud and angry battles against those who were determined to prevent the long arc of social change from bending in the right direction. It simply won’t happen, because it has almost never happened, by finding common ground.
Larry: And that’s a very fine (though sad) place to finish. Thanks, Steve, for engaging in a very thoughtful and useful dialogue!