Chick-Fil-A should be about love, not hate

Dan Cathy has kicked up the heat on Chick-Fil-A and gay marriage. Yes, we know the restaurant chain supports “traditional marriage” and contributes money to groups fighting against gay marriage. By making that stance more than obvious, Chick-Fil-A’s PR nightmare shows that associating a brand with hate, not love, is detrimental to the financial bottom line.

Conservatives are trying to help out the Chick-Fil-A franchise by declaring today as Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. Pro gay marriage forces have organized a “kiss-in” for Friday. The conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee, Billy Graham, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum, aren’t necessarily there for the chicken sandwich, but there to counter the move toward equality in marriage.

For more on the coverage and an in-depth analysis, check out this column from our sister blog, BalanceofFood.com.

Barack Obama finally comes out in favor of same-sex marriage — again

Bill Clinton inhaled. And Barack Obama says he’s cool with same-sex marriage.

We all knew Bill Clinton inhaled, but he couldn’t admit it. We all knew Barack Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage, but he couldn’t admit it. Obama was in favor of same-sex marriage in 1995 — the first time.

The idea that Joe Biden saying he was in favor of gays getting married was a gaffe is part of why the Washington MSM media mentality is so destructive. When hatemongers spew hatred, they get the tip of the cap from the MSM elite. When a sitting vice president speaks about love, it’s an embarrassment.

Never mind that Dick Cheney said it before it was cool in some circles. Biden said it, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and then the first President of the United States to say it said it: gays and lesbians should be able to get married.

The Dems are the ones that set up Irony Fest ’12 in placing its national convention in North Carolina, the state that just passed Amendment One that bans gay marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. What a fun time that will be in Charlotte. On the other hand, the Democratic National Convention will be the closest that natives may get to gay and lesbian visitors. Seriously, if you are gay or lesbian, would you go to North Carolina if you didn’t have to go?

Mitt Romney said for his part that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Will the MSM have the guts to ask Romney about the fact that his grandfather was part of a polygamy commune in Mexico? For those who argue for the traditional definition of marriage, as Romney does, Mormons would argue that their tradition is polygamy and Romney is a Mormon.

Part of that traditional definition of marriage would have nullified the marriage of the president’s parents. In fact, Virginia wouldn’t have recognized Obama’s parents marriage at the time Obama was born. For this reason alone, Obama should have been in favor of gay marriage from at least since the 2008 convention.

But Democratic politicians have felt the need to hide their true self and beliefs because the MSM and others pressure them to do so. George W. Bush proposed a Constitutional amendment that took away rights from Americans. No eyes were batted on that news. Then again, the Dem politicians look foolish when they do fall in the MSM trap.

We know where Romney stands on the marriage front, but his take on gays has come under question in two separate instances. Romney’s refusal to stand up for Richard Grenell, his foreign policy spokesman, who was likely hounded out of his job because he was gay, was disgraceful. And Romney went out of his way to dispel the notion that a prank he had played on someone when he was in high school had nothing to do with whether the victim was gay. “That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s.”

Then again, the boy was picked on because he stood out. Regardless of sexual orientation, the “prank” — pinning the boy and cutting off his ponytail — was rather cruel.

Romney did come up and said gay people should be able to adopt, leading to the idea of a family, but not have the parents get married. Huh?

The one person who has the proper perspective who we have not heard from on this issue is Newt Gingrich. After all, we had a major presidential candidate on the GOP side with a blood relative who is a lesbian. Candace Gingrich is the half-sister of the former Speaker of the House. Though political junkies knew of Candace’s existence, the MSM left her out of the equation when gay marriage issues came up. We’ve heard this “well, the public already knows about this” mentality. Guess what? A whole new generation of young people didn’t know. And not every reader, listener, and viewer remembers every little nuance of candidates, past and present.

“No to all incumbents and no to Amendment One.”

The best line was from one of my Facebook friends from North Carolina. While I can’t agree over the incumbents stance (oversimplification of what is happening politically), I love how he acknowledged what conservatives have traditionally stood for: getting government out of people’s business. This includes the bedroom.

Trust me, he is plenty conservative. But he also knows that government shouldn’t be deciding who can get married.

Harper government’s legal opinion endangers same-sex marriages by Americans in Canada

Canada has been a refuge in the last few years for gays and lesbians in the United States who wanted to get married. Couples would travel to Canada, investing time and money into vacations centered around a ceremony where two people in a loving commitment promise to be true to one another.

Now, with one legal opinion in the Harper government, Canada’s refuge status is in serious danger. In a Toronto divorce case, the federal government argues that those binding marriages aren’t if the people involved don’t live where same-sex marriages is legal. Then why would they have gone to Canada if they had known that?

They went to Canada because the marriages were legal in Canada, and many of those couples have received benefits in the United States, public and private, as a result of those marriages. Stephen Harper has a lot of explaining to do, and until he gives a resolute, definitive answer on this subject, Canada’s marriage travel industry is in trouble.

For more on this, check out our take from our sister blog, CanadianCrossing.com.

Conservatives insist liberals want sharia law, but sharia law appeals much more to the right wing

One flower that stems from the pollen of political allegations are sensationalized theoretical conclusions about the other side. Most people think of them as weeds.

“If we do what the liberals say, we’ll end up like Karl Marx.” “If conservatives get their way, we would constantly be at war and our senior citizens will eat dog food.”

Okay, so most of the manure that are sensationalized theoretical conclusions come from the right-wing because 1) they are good at it, 2) they secretly like being scared, and 3) they don’t really know what liberals would do because it’s so easy to not hear what they’re saying.

Conservatives view liberals as “commies.” Liberals view conservatives as “religious nuts.” Then again, conservatives don’t think Lenin (or Lennon) when they think of commies, they think of Stalin and Brezhnev, neither of which are figures that liberals love. Liberals associate Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell with what conservatives speak, though to be fair, Robertson came out recently telling GOP presidential candidates that they are going too far. Pat Robertson. Seriously.

Mostly out of ignorance, conservatives paint liberals with broad strokes that most liberals would say, “Uh, not quite.” This is easy for conservatives to do because liberal media, what little there is, can be ignored rather easily. Liberals know how to listen to Thom Hartmann, even if it is with a tinny AM radio to a signal that goes down to 1,000 watts at night; most conservatives and moderates have never heard of Thom Hartmann.

This isn’t about the ongoing liberal-conservative war in as much as this is about one new allegation from conservatives that has been spreading for sometime that is not only so wrong about liberals, but also if the allegation were turned around, would fit conservatives to a tailored T.

“If liberals had their way, we would be under Sharia law.”

Even for conservatives, this is difficult to fathom. Liberals somehow want a conservative take on Islamic law, one that punishes people in harsh fashions for accusations that either are things liberals think are OK (gay people) or crimes that don’t fit the punishment (highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated).

In fact, the more you read about sharia law, the more U.S. conservatives would embrace it, not liberals. Religious dogma that can’t be questioned, a harsh justice system with no mercy or exceptions, severely punishing those that love outside marriage, where husbands “rule” and wives “drool,” mostly after being knocked unconscious by their husbands.

“But wait, that’s not fair. Most conservatives would argue against a lot of those points. Some conservatives think the government should not worry about what happens in the bedroom.”

Yes, some conservatives want the government to stop worrying about our sex lives. But not the conservatives we hear from and not the loudest conservatives these days.

Conservatives think they know a lot about communism through the eyes of Karl Marx, but they really don’t. But they have experience with something called “communism.” The vast majority of conservatives and most liberals don’t have much experience with Muslims, much less Sharia law. However, this doesn’t stop conservatives pundits and politicians, including GOP presidential candidates, from saying liberals want sharia law.

Liberals who do have some idea about sharia law aren’t the ones lining up hoping for sharia law. Find us a liberal, one liberal, who wants sharia law in the United States. One. The Chicago Cubs will win two World Series titles before you find one liberal who is begging for sharia law to come to the United States. For non-baseball fans, the Cubs haven’t won 1 World Series since Teddy Roosevelt was president.

The MSM has adopted a olé strategy toward covering conservatives, so getting answers is difficult as to why conservatives think liberals want sharia law or addressing the 180° contrast where sharia law is better suited for conservative interests.

If you are a conservative person who wants sharia law in the United States, feel free to speak up and let your voice be heard. If you are a conservative person who doesn’t like sharia law, then you have a duty to speak up and say that liberals don’t want sharia law. Elements of pure communism (not Soviet rule) have some appeal to liberals, no element of sharia law appeals to liberals. And if you are a conservative person, especially a pundit or politician, who still thinks liberals wants sharia law, then we suggest you do some research. 15 minutes later, you will change your mind — 45 minutes later if you don’t know how to work the Google.

Chick-Fil-A or gay: the choice is in your corner

The latest Chick-Fil-A vs. gay controversy was a ripe topic for a food/politics story for our sister blog, BalanceofFood.com.

If you don’t have a Chick-Fil-A nearby or you don’t believe in gay rights, you likely might not care. But you might want to use this as a case study in other food/politics conflicts.

Here is the column from BalanceofFood.com.

Christine O’Donnell right on masturbation, but still inconsistent on pre-martial sex

Editor’s warning: Today’s column deals with seemingly graphic content. If you freak out easily, perhaps you will want to skip today’s column. Then again, if you easily freak out, you shouldn’t be on this Web site anyway.

Whether or not Christine O’Donnell wins on November 2, she should be remembered for getting something right.

Boy that was hard to type.

The truth is O’Donnell is right about one thing: masturbation is a sin. According to the teachings of the mainstream conventional Christian thought process in the United States, masturbation is a sin. In fact, any loss of sperm outside marriage and pro-creation is considered a sin.

Right now, the Monty Python song “Every Sperm Is Sacred” is probably going through your head.

Masturbation, sex outside of marriage, sex among divorced people, and gay sex all fall into one big category of sin, according to this school of thought.

Whether this is something that you believe to be correct is up to you, your conscience, and your religion. But if you are going to believe this, you might as well be consistent.

Masturbation and gay sex are seen as being on similar grounds, sin-wise. Our societal reaction of one is laughter, the other is scorn.

Imagine if we said those who masturbate couldn’t get married, couldn’t serve in the military, couldn’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, couldn’t inherit property. Any political candidate that pushed for that would get laughed off the political stage. Yet when you substitute “gay” for “masturbater,” the proverbial knives come out.

Sure, you could argue that there are millions of masturbaters in the United States, far more than the number of gay people. And masturbaters have been in positions of power longer and more prominently than gay people.

Heck, those who fight for their religious views to be brought into the law don’t go after divorced people for their sins. Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, among others, ought to be grateful for that mentality. There are certainly more divorced people than gays, but far fewer than masturbaters.

Christine O’Donnell is slightly more consistent on this point than most of the right-wingers. And for sharing that view, O’Donnell received scorn and ridicule.

You would think that we have reached the point where attacks on gays and lesbians would also received scorn and ridicule. But whenever a right-winger slams gays and lesbians, their actions are almost treated with a yawn by the MSM. Glenn Beck called Barack Obama a “racist” with no proof whatsoever and Beck still gets light treatment from the MSM.

O’Donnell goes after those who masturbate, and people don’t even attack her. Then again, we still tee-hee over talk on the subject, no matter the message.

The right-wingers know if they were to be consistent on this subject, they would suffer ridicule and scorn. But by limiting it to just bashing gays, they gain political points through ignorance and “morality.”

O’Donnell said repeatedly in a debate that she didn’t know the Constitution mentions the separation between church and state. She doesn’t seem to understand that in the First Amendment, the government shall make no religion means no religious interference in the running of government.

Literally, the term “separation of church and state” didn’t come until later, but it is based on what is in the Constitution.

O’Donnell is also probably not aware that if she were to win on November 2, she would have to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. She is clearly familiar with the Bible she would use to swear onto, but she could use a few lessons as to what is in the Constitution. So could the other teabagger candidates who could potentially swear to uphold and defend.

If she becomes the junior senator from Delaware, there would be hope that she would submit a bill that would punish those who masturbate. She could sign the bill with a stroke of a pen. She could hand it over to be processed. She might even have her palm greased by corporate interests who would want this to happen (though maybe not the lotion companies).

Because if O’Donnell and the teabaggers get elected on November 2, the education on the Constitution will be an ongoing process. Come along for the ride.

If you embrace faux lesbians, you must accept real lesbians and gays

I’ve been enjoying the MLB Extra Innings/NHL Center Ice free preview. Sure there are plenty of free baseball games as its season begins and lots of hockey action as playoff slots are determined.

But the extra fun is watching out-of-town and in some cases, out-of-country commercials. Two of them had an interestingly similar theme, especially given the audience of the ads.

Commercial #1 is from Jack in the Box featuring its new grilled sandwiches. Two women describe why their sandwich is the best. Jack turns to the camera and says this is the worst commercial he has ever been in. One woman says, “We could kiss.”

Commercial #2 is from Yellow Pages Canada. A woman sits in a restaurant eyeing a guy across the way. The woman’s imagination runs away from her and we soon see her in a wedding dress as the guy takes off. A waitress comes into view and the announcer says that she could be “Plan B.”

We have in these two commercials the hint of lesbianism. At least, there is the hint of faux lesbianism.

We also got a hint of faux lesbianism during the RNC lesbian bondage scandal. One of the themes of the place is to have faux lesbians on display sharing affection.

So we’ve established that women sharing affection is considered OK as long as they don’t really love each other. The Canadian commercial involves a wedding, but then again, lesbian can legally get married in Canada.

And since Republicans officially endorse faux lesbianism, why does the real thing scare them and others?

Why are real people who love each other who happen to be the same gender so scary and faux situations be OK?

We hear how gay marriage is a horrible idea, in much the same way as we heard that interracial marriage was a horrible idea. But fake gay people sharing affection is cool.

As a straight male, I am not here to deny any man the thrill of watching women pretending to be lesbians. It would violate the straight man rules, and I won’t hear of any violation.

But what should be part of the guy code is that if you embrace fake lesbians, you should accept real lesbians. And real gay people. And let them live their lives in freedom, peace, and harmony.

If you blasted the young woman in Mississippi for wanting to take her girlfriend to the prom, if you voted for or supported drives to thwart gay marriage, if you have ever said the word “f*gg*t” to scare or intimidate someone, you should lose the right to enjoy faux lesbians.

If you truly believe that two people of the same gender shouldn’t love or communicate affectionately, then you should be consistent and look away when two women are pretending to like each other that way. You can’t imagine your wife or girlfriend and a friend of hers locked in an embrace. You can’t have fantasies about two women rolling around in their underwear, remnant of this classic Miller Lite ad.

A few years back at a Chicago White Sox game, the Kiss Cam was going around the park. If you aren’t familiar with the concept, the camera shows couples throughout the ballpark and stays on them until they kiss. They try to pick married or committed couples, but sometimes they pick brother-sister combos or friends, but not the kissing kind.

In this game, they centered on a group of women who happened to be sitting right in front of us. Two of the young women were on the screen, and motivated by the exposure and the crowd egging them on, they kissed right in front of us and for the camera.

My friends and I cheered when they did it. The crowd loved it. And by no coincidence, the White Sox came from behind after the kiss to win the game.

We talked with the young women, asking them if they went that way. They said no; they did because they felt like it. Good for them.

The crowd may have loved it because they knew it was fake. But that isn’t fair to them, regardless of their sexual orientation.

The hypocritical contradiction of embracing lesbians is at the core of our disturbing stance on “don’t ask, don’t tell” and gay marriage. Plenty of those against change don’t mind if two straight women kiss, as long as they don’t mean it.

You’re welcome to see real lesbians kiss and pretend that they don’t mean it. You’re welcome to have freedom of thought. Just keep your prejudice inside your head. And let consenting adults live in the freedom you preach of so high and mighty.