In a recent subscriber-only newletter Jonah Goldberg put out, regarding the Chick-fil-A kerfuffle, he noted something I find interesting, and thought-provoking (HT: DG; BTW, I’m not a big fan of Goldberg, but even stopped clocks are right twice a day, after all, as I think Goldberg happens to be, in this):
I think it’s interesting to note that Dan Cathy’s original controversial statement is more pointed at the institution of divorce than at gay marriage. “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 yet it wasn’t the divorced-American or the re-married-American community that rose up in outrage. It was the gay-rights community — which apparently sees belief or rather vocal belief in “Biblical marriage” as a crime unto itself.
Indeed, divorced and remarried people apparently didn’t take offense at Cathy’s words; they obviously didn’t see them as applying to them, did they…
Why is that? Certainly, it’s the sissies who are always ready to throw a sissy hissy fit over the slightest perceived slight, hair-trigger ready to take offense and bitch and raise a stink over such. They are self-servingly paranoid, if I may, and everyone who is not a ‘progressive’ certainly knows that. Now, it may be merely that, by contrast, divorced and remarried people are simply not as aggrieved as the sodomites are, seeing opponents as practically hiding behind trees, ready to jump out and ‘oppress’ them.
But, perhaps there’s more to it, than just that…
I think that generally, divorced and remarried people just don’t see themselves as such (i.e. their identities aren’t wrapped up in their being divorced and remarried people, in the way that sodomites’ identities are wrapped up in their sexual orientation), fundamentally; since they have been married, in some cases more than once, they are apt to see themselves as more pro-marriage than they are pro-divorce, not without some justification, since if they hadn’t been, they wouldn’t have gotten married in the first place.
And no doubt, thanks to the culture of easy divorce having invaded even the church, without much opposition, divorced churchians are able to rationalize away their reasons for getting divorced, and consider their own cases exceptional, allowing them to both claim they believe strongly in Biblical marriage, but that they had extenuating circumstances in their particular circumstances, allowing them to legitimately end their marriages.
(The other factor, of course, is that if divorce is only sought by one spouse, for frivolous reasons other than adultery, for example, the other one will rightly consider himself / herself not responsible for the decision to end the marriage – while, of course, the initiator may excuse herself / himself, rationalizing away the decision, blaming the other spouse for it. Women, especially, under our current ‘Marriage 2.0’, are esp. prone to this.)
Thus, perhaps, in part, one reason, apart from not being as hypersensitive to perceived slights as sodomites are, why none of them saw themselves indicted in Cathy’s championing of traditional marriage. (That goes for divorced churchians no doubt as much as it does for their secular divorced brethren and sisters.)
I’d bet there were many divorced and remarried churchians, including ones (esp. women) who ended their marriages for frivolous reasons, amongst the people who turned out at Chick-fil-A locations across America in droves on August 1 (Mike Huckabee and Rev. Billy Graham’s “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day”), who didn’t in the slightest see themselves reflected in Dan Cathy’s statements, thinking they were doing their good duty in standing up for traditional marriage and against gay marriage, and supporting Cathy’s right to defend traditional marriage, unaware of the irony of their actions. (But then, churchians are obsessed with the gay marriage issue, while being completely oblivious to societal misandry; they’re completely Blue Pill, after all.)
Just a thought.