Rahm Emanuel and Chicken

     I do not agree with Chick-fil-A's chairman Dan Cathy on his view of gay marriage.  My opinion is that it is time that gay marriage achieve recognition in our nation.  That "traditional marriage" is the union between "one man and one woman" does not necessarily square with history.  A read of the Old Testament and other ancient literature should be enough to convince one that the "tradition" of marriage often included one man and several women.  Whether this tradition demonstrates male oppression of women, or whether this tradition is more benign--women simply needed the protection of a male head of family in some societies--is unclear to me.  (For an interesting read on marriage, look at historian Stephanie Coontz's book Marriage, a History:  How Love Conquered Marriage). 

     Dan Cathy's recent remarks that he supports "traditional" marriage has met with predictable denunciations from the gay community and with predictable support from conservative Christian quarters.  Many LGBT groups are calling for boycotts of Chick-fil-A restaurants, even though Cathy made clear that his views were personal and would not change the way his restaurants operate.  I think neither side appears convinced.  Protests outside his restaurants challenging his views are matched by pledges to patronize the restaurants even more.  Boycotts of businesses and pledges to support businesses (based on the same issue) are fairly common.  All kinds of groups have employed these tactics.

     I do not believe that gay marriage threatens society.  I do not believe that a married gay couple moving in next door to me and my wife somehow diminishes the "sanctity of marriage."  In fact, if we are worried about the sanctity of marriage, we ought to be a lot more worried about all the heterosexuals who routinely violate their marriage vows.  Gay people who want to share a committed and state-recognized relationship with the person they love are not a threat to committed heterosexual unions.  But not everyone agrees with me, and I am okay with that.  It is an emotional debate, but it is a debate we must have.

     What does disturb me about this debate is the coercive involvement of elected mayors.  The mayors of Boston and Chicago have said they will block efforts by Chick-fil-A to open restaurants in their cities.  Rahm Emanuel has said that Chick-fil-A does not have "Chicago values."  In other words, Rahm Emanuel is saying that any business that operates within the city limits of Chicago must share whatever he defines as "Chicago values."  That is scary.  It is borderline illegal.

    I have a problem with mayors dediding what values businesses must adhere to.  Does this mean that if Joe wants to open Joe's Bar in Chicago, Joe must clear his values with Rahm Emanuel first?  Or does this mean that Joe should simply keep quiet about whatever he values?  Probably the latter.  And what would happen if a conservative Republican were to be elected mayor of Chicago? Does that mayor now have the right to shutter all the businesses that previously adhered to the accepted list of Rahm Emanuel values?  The real test of whether a business is acceptable to the people of Chicago is whether people patronize it.  The test is not whether the current mayor has accurately defined the values of the voters.

     The suppression of freedom of speech is, unfortunately, a time-honored tradition in our nation, the First Amendment notwithstanding.  The second president, John Adams, pushed the "Alien and Sedition Acts" through Congress early in our nation's history, making it a crime in some instances to critcize the government.  Under the four laws of these acts, several journalists were jailed.  And the real targets of the law were Thomas Jefferson and his "republican" followers, who favored a closer alliance with revolutionary France.  The Alien and Sedition Acts, which seemed to clearly conflict with the First Amendment, were passed in 1789, only two years after the ratification of the Constitution.  This was not the only attempt to suppress freedom of speech.  There have been several more.

     Freedom of speech is ugly.  For everyone who agrees with me, there is certainly another who disagrees.  Freedom of association is difficult.  Groups I am involved with may seem abhorrent to members of other groups.  The freedom to trade is equally difficult, though my ability to open a business should be constrained by the quality of my product and the willingness to pay of my customers.  My ability to trade is also rightly constrained by the power of government to tax.  As a person who operates a business, I should expect to pay taxes as a cost of doing business.  But what I should not expect is some kind of "litmus test" imposed by a mayor or a governor as to my personal or politcal views.  After all, if Rahm Emanuel can say a business owner opposed to gay marriage cannot operate in Chicago, what stops him from saying that any business cannot operate there for any reason he chooses?

     I do not know if I will patronize Chick-fil-A.  I happen to like their menu.  I also happen to disagree with Dan Cathy's view of gay marriage.  But my decision to patronize a business is simply that--my decision.  I do not need Rahm Emanuel or any other elected official to prescribe my buying choices for me.  I do not want to live in a city where only "party-approved businesses" can operate.  If Rahm Emanuel does not understand the implications of that, there is a problem. But I think he does understand, so there is another problem.