4 Failures in the Chick-Fil-A Controversy

I posted these thoughts on Facebook, and since they were so well-received I thought I’d share them here.

In light of the Chick-Fil-A controversy, I now realize modern man is almost incapable of distinguishing between these four things:

1. Approval and Implicit Condemnation. Just because you support one thing doesn’t mean you’re viciously antagonistic toward another (i.e. “anti-” the opposite.) If Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, that doesn’t mean he ipso facto “hates gay people” or is “anti-gay.”

2. Disagreeing and Hating. I disagree with ideas all the time. This does not necessitate hating the person who proposed them. Your beliefs are not your identity.

3. Beliefs and People. This is somewhat similar to #2. Rejecting a belief does not equal rejecting a person. You can reject the validity of same-sex marriage on philosophical and social grounds while still profoundly loving people with same-sex attraction. I reject at least some opinions or actions from each of my friends (such as “double-rainbows are boring” or “playing the lottery is wise.”) They in turn reject plenty of my own. But we don’t hate each other. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our relationship is grounded on a communion of persons, not a symmetry of beliefs.

4. Bigotry and Disagreement. The definition of bigot is “one unwilling to tolerate opinions different than his own”—not “someone who disagrees with me.” Toleration doesn’t require agreement, merely recognition and respect. (Ironically, those quickest to accuse people of bigotry are often bigoted about their flawed definition of “bigot.”)

The solution to these failures is not more dialogue. It’s better philosophy, logic, and reason. Unfortunately, until two people are capable of making these distinctions, healthy, productive dialogue about same-sex marriage is almost impossible.

(For good measure, here’s a picture from last night of our un-bigoted, un-hateful family enjoying three of America’s great treasures: marriage, freedom of conscience, and delicious fried chicken.)

Here’s just a glimpse at how crowded our Chick-Fil-A was last night:


I really liked Fr. Longenecker’s thoughts on Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. Calling it a “triumph of the ordinary,” he makes an important observation:

“It was historic because it marks a new method of mass protest. I even hesitate to use the word ‘protest’ because it wasn’t a protest. There wasn’t any anger. There wasn’t any hate. There wasn’t any bullying. There were no unwashed crowds of unhappy people holding a sit in and causing other people stress, inconvenience and expense. There were no protest signs, no marches, no noise makers and attention grabbers. There were no revolutionary slogans, no clenched fists, no class warfare, no sullen adolescents in a stroppy mood.”

(Image Credit: Todd Stocker)

  • Munna kumar

    CTRL+V is the windows shortcut keys which is used for pasting the selected files in a folder. shortcut keys for windows So if you want to move folder form one place to another then you should try this windows shortcut keys.

  • Jason

    #4 most explicitly shows a fatal flaw as this relates to the same sex marriage debate:

    “The definition of bigot is “one unwilling to tolerate opinions different than his own”—not “someone who disagrees with me.” Toleration doesn’t require agreement, merely recognition and respect. (Ironically, those quickest to accuse people of bigotry are often bigoted about their flawed definition of “bigot.”)”

    Anyone who advocates against, votes against, or gives money to efforts to ban same sex marriage is simply unwilling to tolerate the opinion different from his own that two men or women can and do marry. You are trying to codify your “unwilling[ness] to tolerate” into universal secular law. You are explicitly trying to ban “recognition and respect” for our marriages. Your position, therefore is bigoted and not tolerant, by your own definition. If a Catholic was truly “tolerant” and not “bigoted,” by these definitions, they would allow us gays (even us gay Catholics) to get married, as long as we didn’t involve the Church in any way (e.g. force the Church to witness our marriage in our local parish or host our reception in the parish hall). We gays have no problem with compromise, as evidenced in the law passed in NY (among others) which gives explicit exemption to religious opponents and which, if violated by a court, invalidates the entire law. Unless advocates for banning same-sex marriage can unequivocally show (non-religiously based) harm done to society by our marriage, you have no leg to stand on other than simply being “unwilling to tolerate opinions different from [your] own.” By your own logic, then, I have no choice but to use the word “bigots” for you of the CFA “appreciation day” crowd, and anyone else who goes there to support “marriage and freedom of conscience.” For if you truly did support these, you would not only be eating some delicious fried chicken (which I love and used to eat until this summer), but would also advocate for same sex marriage, in support of freedom of conscience of consenting adults.

    Your money and your presence at CFA was intended to make a statement, as confirmed by your citing Fr. Longenecker’s “mass protest.” And to say that buying at CFA is not the same as supporting Cathy’s views is summarily hypocritical. Planned Parenthood truly does provide great and essential services (mammograms, pap smears, other primary care), but Catholics are correct to not give a penny to PP or any entity that supports it because we do not want one penny of ours even possibly supporting abortion in the slightest. This is the same rationale at work here, and since there is no demonstrable, non-religious harm with same sex marriage (as opposed to the ending of a life with abortion), there is no other word for your position aside from “bigoted,” by your own logic and reason.

  • TowhereamI

    You treat this as if this whole thing is over a comment and that is only one point that people have made. Number 4 is completely invaluable to the whole situation. you define a bigot, and yes based on just the comments in made in whatever speech, you are correct he is not a bigot. However, let us speak of intolerance. When you own a company that annually (if not more than that) contributes to foundations and political groups that focus their efforts on keeping gay marriage illegal, and that have attempted to bring forth legislation criminalizing homosexuality, that’s what i would call intolerance, so I guess we have completed the definition of bigot.

    Me personally, I could care less what the guy says. Im a Popeyes guy myself and even if i was a frequent at Chick-fil-a, Cathy’s political beliefs mean absolutely nothing to me. Everybody has a right to say whatever they want. But once you say something, everyone else in the USA has their own right to disagree and make their own comment heard.

    This whole situation is not about Gay rights, It’s about human rights. When you refuse to let gays marry you consider them inferior and less than human. Who cares if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman a woman? In all reality there is no hurt to anyone if it is allowed. People want to talk about the Sanctity of Marriage? That is a joke. Have you see divorce rates for straight couples? And on top of the the percentage of those that end because of adultry? Us straight people have ruined the Sanctity of Marriage quite enough. Maybe a few Gay couples could help fix that.

    • Bonnie

      The concept of same-sex marriage and “gay rights” is not the same thing as human rights. As Brandon says in one of his comment responses above:

      “I would totally agree with your entire comment *if* same-sex marriage was a natural right, which you seem to assume it [is]. If you’re right about that, then I agree: nobody would have any reason to prevent it. If you tried to prevent same-sex marriage, you would certainly be guilty of unjust discrimination.

      But same-sex marriage is not a natural right. Nor is “marrying whoever you want” an absolute right. The definition of marriage–i.e. what marriage is and purposes to do–precludes two people of the same-sex from entering into it (just as it precludes three people from marrying each other.)”

      The “gay agenda” demands a redefinition of the concept of marriage. The fact that “straight” people can have failed marriages, can sin, can cheat on their spouses, etc, does not invalidate the fact that marriage between a man and a woman is the historical and biblical standard. The failed marriages, adultery and other sins listed above are still sins in God’s book, as are same-sex sexual relationships. Redefining the concept of marriage in human terms will not change that fact, nor will it sanctify the concept of same-sex relationships in God’s eyes (or in the eyes of Bible-believing humans).

      By the way, I’m not really sure what you mean when you say that “Number 4 is completely invaluable to the whole situation.” Invaluable means: “extremely useful; indispensable: ‘an invaluable source of information.’ Synonyms: priceless – inestimable – inappreciable.” Did you mean inapplicable, something which does not apply? I would certainly have to disagree with that, if that *is* what you meant – I find #4 very relevant to the whole Chick-fil-A ruckus.

      Brandon, an excellent article, thank you. You have articulated several things I’ve been pointing out to friends and acquaintances (in a much more piecemeal fashion) over the course of the last couple of weeks.

      • Alisce

        You cannot use biblical examples without acknowledging that polygamy was quite accepted and encouraged in the Old Testament. Should your religious beliefs be the basis for our legal system? We are a pluralistic society, with many varied beliefs. Which religion gets to choose?

  • RThomas845

    1. Approval and Implicit Condemnation – It is true that approval of one thing does not necessarily mean disapproval of the opposite, but the comparison used here are not opposites (“traditional marriage” versus “gay people”). The opposite of a traditional marriage between one man and one woman is a same-sex marriage, that of which Dan Cathy most definitely and implicitly condemns.

    2. Disagreeing and Hating -I also believe this distinction is an import life lesson. In terms of Dan Cathy, I don’t think it’s the disagreeing part that implies hatred, but rather the words used to describe those that disagree with him (“prideful” and “arrogant”). You can disagree with people without name-calling.

    3. Beliefs and People – I think this one is so much like #2, that it did not constitute a 3rd paragraph and the same argument applies. You may not agree with your friend that double-rainbows are boring, but when you tell them they are ridiculous or “arrogant” for believing so, you turn the focus from belief to people.

    4. Bigotry and Disagreement – Bigot is a strong word and I have never used it to describe anyone because of its negative connotation, but by the definition given above, Dan Cathy would be a bigot. He is “unwilling to tolerate” and refuses to “recognize” same-sex marriage. When someone tolerates something, they do not intervene. If my child is screaming down the aisle in a grocery store, a behavior with which I strongly disagree, but I allow it to happen, I am tolerating it.

    While I agree with the main ideas of this blog (i.e., disagreeing does not equal hating), I just don’t agree that it applies to the “Dan Cathy/Chick-Fil-A situation”. Honestly, I haven’t really paid much attention to it all because I think it has been totally blown out of proportion and the man has a right to his opinion. On a side note, though, I do have a hard time understanding this controversy about same-sex marriage. How does allowing two people of the same sex to get married and thus allowing them the same legal benefits as a traditionally-married couple, affect the legitimacy of those traditional marriages? People get married under different religions and beliefs throughout the world every day. Does that mean that it somehow discounts all the marriages with different beliefs? Talk about “arrogant”… Who is so arrogant to believe that THEIR marriage is the only true marriage?

  • Bascoda

    If you strip away all of the rhetoric – religious, pc, agenda-driven or whatever – it comes down to this. The CEO of Chic-Fil-A has the right to express his opinion. Those who disagree with him have the right to tell him they think he’s full of (expletive deleted); they have the right to refuse to patronize his business and encourage their friends and acquaintances to do likewise. They also have the right to stage public protests about same, as long as those protests are orderly and do not incite violence or endanger the general welfare in any way.
    Similarly, those who agree with the CEO’s opinion have the right to express their support, patronize his business and encourage their friends and acquaintances to do likewise, and stage public demonstrations in his favor, as long as those demonstrations are orderly and do not incite violence or endanger the general welfare. in any way.
    This includes the various public officials who might choose to use their elected office and the influence that goes with it to affect this issue. To use a specific example, the mayor of Boston certainly has the right to publicly state that he is opposed to the views expressed by the CEO of Chick-Fil-A. HOWEVER, as long as Chick-Fil-
    A meets all of the legal requirements necessary to open a business in his city, he has absolutely no grounds to interfere with that process based upon his his dislike of the CEO’s publicly expressed views.
    I personally find the opinions expressed by the CEO of Chick-Fil-A, as well as some of the company’s personnel policies and practices to be repugnant, repulsive, and any other negative descriptive terms one might care to apply. Even so, though I have every right to refuse to do business with them, I do not have the right to interfere with their right to conduct their business according to their own personal beliefs.

  • Natalie

    Loved the article! I also read the first couple comments on the page and noticed that you said your son’s name is Augustine. Good name choice…My husband and I named our first born(he is 2) Augustine Gregory and we call him both Augy and Gus for nicknames. 🙂 Our second son is named Ignatius..Both named after great saints. 🙂 But back on topic….I ran across your article on FB and now I look forward to showing your blog/site with my husband…He’ll love it! Thanks again for the great post and I look forward to going through your site and reading more!

  • Scott Tonk

    It’s not a Chick-Fil-A controversy. It never was a Chick-Fil-A controversy. The controversy centers around whether or not a given pressure group can exert pressure – even up to the point of practically terrorizing another target group in the service of some ideology or other – and this in our culture, which promotes REAL tolerance, even of groups with opposing ideologies – as opposed to phony “tolerance” which will not tolerate an opposing group.

  • Straightshooter67

    I am a Christian, and I personally STAND for all the biblical principals of the WORD of GOD ( KJV ) and THOUGH I HATE NO ONE.
    I’m required to hate sin, GOD LOVES everyone despite what the world thinks, no matter of race, color, or creed, GOD does LOVE us all, but he hates the sin we commit, and He ( GOD ) says if you love me in return you won’t do sinful things you do, and do as I asked you too, beleive me I had to learn many, many, many things the hard way and the biggest of all is; we cannot do as we please to others, ourselves and especially to GOD and call ourselves christians, but many do..I DID! I was WRONG!
    Do people have the right to do as they please? Of course we do!
    Do people have the right to say what’s in their mind and hearts?
    Of course they do! GOD is simply saying don’t call ME your GOD; and live the opposite of what I have told you, It’s not just about homosexuals. It’s ( ANYTHING ) or ( ANYONE ) that exalts it’s self above GOD! Sin is Sin, theres no breaking this and that rule, people who commit sin know whether or not they should or shouldn’t do it.
    It’s simple RIGHT and WRONG, YES or NO. But heres the thing we all mess up on, we get it in our heads that after we have done so much WRONG we think GOD wouldn’t want me, I’m to unclean for him to want me, so we try to change ourselves by doing more good, being nicer, helping the community, or the poor, and those are great things, but it’s like trying to get cleaned up before taking a bath, it makes no sense to do that if your getting in the shower or bath already! Not one single person living or dead has ever got clean enough on their own in order for GOD to accept them, the biggest sin we could possibly ever commit is DENYING JESUS CHRIST as the only one who could forgive us. So inspite of the worlds thinking; GOD loves the murder, the thief, the liar, the pornographer, the hooker, the wife and child abuser, the pedophile, the alcohol and drug addict you name it GOD LOVES everyone of these people, but as much as we would like for him to He can’t simply say it’s okay; do whatever you want and you can come live with me in Heaven for eternity, Sorry! He doesn’t work that way, Look! We have all that junk now here on earth, and look at the chaos, Why in GOD’S wisdom would HE let these type of actions/behaviors into Heaven? He couldn’t call it Heaven then,OBVIOUSLY! Then that means it is simply not permitted by the LORD GOD JEHOVAH JIREH of the BIBLE, which is why we need to repent to JESUS and turn form our wickedness, and we know it when we see it, We know it as soon as we think it, but we like to act dumb, and make the rules to fit our needs and wants. We’re so caught up in what we think GOD should what we want him to be and let others determine what is good for us. It is saddening that most of us haven’t really sit down and tried to learn the truth about GOD! No we just have short meaningless conversations about GOD and assume our facts are based on our own opinions and what others think. GOD has already told us whats best for us, it’s just people don’t want to hear of their WRONG doings because they feel they are being judged, no one can look at another and say; you shouldn’t do that! unless they have understood they too have to be righteous before GOD before pointing the proverbial finger. I’m sinner number 1, I’ll tell you, I’ve done so much that I deserve more punishment than i ever gotten, and payed my dues to man and did time for my crimes and actions, but none the less I was still accountable to GOD even though I payed my debt to society. So once I FINALLY understood what i needed to do to be completely absolved of ALL my sins by GOD and did IT, then the process of turning my life around started taking place, little by little, day by day I literally began to see a better person in myself, it was GOD gradually chipping away the old man and creating a new MAN in JESUS CHRIST. Am I there yet?, to be honest, I know i’m not, because I know something NEW is going to happen and it’s going to be GREAT! So, among all the debates of this and that, they have become pointless to me, I’m thankful for the Stand Chic fil a is taking, But becareful in what you judge, view the whole picture, consider each other’s feelings. but know this, If there were no RIGHT or WRONG, YES or NO to this controversy then there would be NO CONTROVERSY. Someone here is wrong and I know who it is, DO YOU? is the question? so I will continue to pray that GOD will give Revelation to not just the one who is right, but to all who is watching as the days pass, that they to will use discernment properly according to what GOD reflects to the world through His word. My prayers are for the Whole World, But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!!!!
    With Brotherly love,

    • George123

      It’s not simple right and wrong, yes or no. Your opinions lead others to feel threatened by homosexuality. Remember Matthew Shepherd? How many people are bullied each year for their sexuality? When you make statements that God hates the sin, bigots call that license to hurt/kill in the name of God.

  • So, concise, yet right to the point, & so clear. But, more importantly, so Biblically-based. Very well done. Hope you enjoyed so good chicken. God bless! Steve.

  • Jsb1345

    Way to dress it up. But yon matter how you put it you’re still a bigot. Just an articulate one.

    • Aristo Kratte

      lol, case in point

    • Jsb1345…so if you disagree with someone elses lifestyle, then does that make you a bigot? Do you support polygamy & adult, consenual incestual marriage, as well as other ‘non-traditional’ marriages? You are missing the whole point of this mass support the Chick-fil-A. They were ASKED what they OPINION on what a marriage is, & they were HONEST in answering. As a result, they were BANNED by the mayors in Chicago & Boston from selling their products, because they disagreed with their personal opinion – which is ILLEGAL. So, by using your logic, if you disagree with anyone’s beliefs, including this guy or Chick-fil-A, then YOU are a bigot. See how that’s a double-standard, & not what this is about?

      • Iamthatguy

        “so if you disagree with someone elses lifestyle, then does that make you a bigot?”

        No, however when you try to condemn their lifestyle, or to stop it entirely because it is not what you believe? Yes you are a bigot. Dan Cathy contributes to political organizations that work to make sure that Gays cannot marry, and at times have attempted to introduce legislation that criminalizes homosexuality. As long as he continues to financially support these groups I will believe that he supports their cause, and so he is a bigot.

  • Happyhippo

    I humbly disagree with the statement “There wasn’t any anger. There wasn’t any hate. There wasn’t any bullying.” The statements made by some of the customers were exactly that. Again, we get to the idea of bigotry, and worse, ignorance and avoidance.
    I’m too tired of this topic to comment further. I just wish you would take your words to heart, and not let them be so hollow.

    • Happyhippo, do you have any examples on film of customers behaving with anger, hate, or bullying?

      And those weren’t my words, by the way. They were Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s.

  • Thebluepencil

    A person is indeed entitles to one’s opinion, but to suggest that any attempt at achieving gay rights with regard to marriage would incite condemnation from God and bring upon shame is more than a one-sided statement. I believe, contrary to this blogpost, that his words indicate an anti-gay ideology. I’m not saying that he hates gay individuals, but his soundbite clearly shows that he is against gay marriage and does not view it as a viable right.

    • Thanks for the comment! You summed up the whole situation well, accept for your interpretation of what it means.

      You’re right that Cathy is opposed to gay marriage and does not view it as a viable right. But that does not mean he is anti-gay. It simply doesn’t follow as I’ve shown several times above. He’s opposed to a specific action; not a group of people.

      • Thebluepencil

        Yeah I can see what you’re saying, although gay marriage is huge component of gay rights and the entire movement.

        I guess it becomes more apparent in the reverse example: “I’m opposed to heterosexual marriage, but I’m not opposed to heterosexuals.” In all technicality thats completely logical, but I think there is an overlapping conflict.

        It’s basically like saying, “I’m not opposed to the group, but I’m opposed to their interests.”

        At what point can you completely separate your opposition of an ideology from the the people who want to practice it. I understand what you are saying, but I believe there is some overlap between the opposition of a group’s rights and the group themselves.

        Anyway I just wanted to say thank you for commenting back! I think it’s great that you are encouraging an intelligent discussion about the matter!

        • Micha_Elyi

          “Gay” is a lifestyle and a politics. You yourself referred to it as a “movement.” Participating in such things are chosen behaviors. “Gay” and “homosexual” are not synonyms. There are homosexuals who find the interests of “gays” to be – your words – “opposed to their interests.”

          Think about that.

          The truth blue-pencils your claims.

          • Thebluepencil

            According to dictionary.com, gay means “of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.”

            Being gay is not a chosen behavior, however I agree that participating in the gay rights movement is. I think it would be safe to assert that the majority of individuals who are homosexual are in favor of gay marriage and other pursuits of the gay rights movement. Not all, just the majority.

            This is why I generally pair the interests of homosexuals with the interests of those involved in the gay rights movement.

          • I’m glad you’re able to make that distinction, because it’s an important one.

            Unfortunately, most advocates of same-sex-marriage, when charging others with “anti-gay” sentiments, seem to imply that they are against gay people as people.

            But this is not the case. We are against specific actions, namely same-sex marriage in particular and the redefinition of marriage in general, regardless of who proposes the redefinition.

            I would not be anti-heterosexual by disagreeing with my heterosexual friend that same-sex marriage is not just an impossibility, but would be hugely problematic for society if promoted.

            Cathy and all supporters of traditional marriage are “anti-gay” if “gay” is solely reduced to same-sex marriage. But understanding “anti-gay” as it is commonly used by same-sex-marriage advocates to mean “anti-gay-people”, this title is offensive and fallacious.

          • Thebluepencil

            Yeah I agree, there is a distinction between anti-gay and anti-gay rights. The whole “controversy” is really about his thoughts about those denied rights, which is why it has led to many citizens being upset with his anti-gay rights sentiment. The above description is more accurate than “anti-gay” but the two categories are not completely devoid of each other.

            This is not about his opinions about gay people as individuals, but about their rights within our country.

          • Loveinpeices88

            “same-sex marriage is not just an impossibility, but would be hugely problematic for society if promoted.”

            How? If you can answer that question then I may take you seriously.

          • Largebill

            You say being gay is not a chosen behavior as if it is a statement of fact rather than an opinion. Thing is it is just an opinion which has been repeated so often that people mistakenly think it is a true statement.

          • Thebluepencil

            The same can be said about your stance on the issue.

          • “According to dictionary.com, gay means “of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.”

            If that’s the case, then Barack Obama is gay. This is what happens when you let progressives edit dictionaries.

          • Thebluepencil

            If you would like to start editing the definitions of words be my guest.

  • Dan Crofts

    Awesome article, Brandon! Do you mind if I quote from it on my own Facebook page?

    If I may, I would like to make one other point as well: People today also seem unable to distinguish between applying a governing principle to two separate situations and making an explicit comparison between those situations.

    For instance, whenever someone says that same-sex marriages should be allowed because “that’s just the way these people are wired,” you might well respond by asserting that if we used that logic, then we would have to allow pedophiles to marry nine-year-old kids because that’s how they are sexually wired; such people will typically respond in this way: “So you’re comparing same-sex attraction to raping kids.”

    To me, such statements as that have no place in an intelligent debate. Any reasonable person should understand that what is here being construed as a comparison is simply an illustration of why the mere fact of a person having a given orientation is not a valid argument in favor of allowing him/her to act on it.

    • Dan, please share!

      And you make a good point. I think the clearest way to sum it up is that people increasingly are unable to distinguish between Analogy and Equality.

      To analogize does not mean to equate.

      Analogies are simply meant to illustrate principles, not to precisely describe a particular situation.

      • Micha_Elyi

        Interesting. I’d always assumed my frustrated interlocutors couldn’t be that lame-brained but instead were trying to run away from the honest conclusion that the analogy entails.

  • That was a good piece there.

  • Adolfo

    I didn’t participate in the Chik Fil A thing, not b/c i’m for same sex marriage (I’m not), but b/c I refuse to be caught up in the over-politicization of our society. We MUST pick sides–on everything! The whole thing was contrived by a former politician who now works at FOX News. Just ridiculous.

  • bh12001

    When you redefine the debate as you did you can always make your position look reasonable. These arguments (e.g., we “care about” but don’t support equality for [X] person) are the re-hashed arguments of groups who opposed the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

    One day we will all be explaining to our children why we discriminated against people with a genetic attraction to the same sex. For myself, I will proudly be able to tell my kids that their (straight) father stood on the right side of the debate – that is, that I stood up and supported equal marriage rights for all people no matter who they love. I pray you do the same.

    • bh12001, welcome! Thanks for the comment.

      I don’t agree with your insinuation that race and same-sex attraction are equivalent. You might want to read this article:


    • standing4truth


      I just wanted to point out a few things:

      First, it is the same-sex proponents who are doing the redefining. Society protected marriage for the benefits it brought to society (future workforce, taxpayers, etc). Now it is being defined as something that simply signifies two people love each other, not really making it any different than when people date.

      Second, you seem to express disbelief that we care about homosexuals since we say they are not allowed to get married, but you have no reason for that disbelief except your own pre-conceived notions.

      Third, there is no evidence same-sex attraction is genetically determined.

      Fourth, you may one day be on the winning side of the debate, but that does not make it the right side. You want equal marriage rights for all people, so I assume you are also pushing for beastiality, a daughter marrying her mother, and a 50-year-old man marrying a 5-year-old, right? If you are not for those, then you are denying people equal marriage rights based on who they love. If you are for those, then marriage really has no meaning.

      I will proudly be able to say to my kids that I stood up for what was right, even against those who threw around incorrect insults such as ‘bigot’ and do not see the real value in marriage – that is, that I stood up and supported marriage as it is meant to be. I pray you do the same.

      • bh12001

        If you actually cared about the LBGT population you would not make statements that are blatently false, such as there is “NO evidence” that there is a predisposition to same sex attraction. Whether you agree with it or not, there is a plethora of evidence on the topic. Choosing to ignore it and “cure” gays, just shows how little you care.

        Also, your point about beastiality and inter-family relationships is a prime example of your attempts to re-define a losing argument and it belies reason. Misstate an argument, attach irrational consequences, and blow it out of proportion. Good job 🙂

        Of course, I wouldn’t support the marriage of two individuals who would cause harm to one of those individuals or to another. For instance, a 50-year old man could not marry an underage person because that would adversely affect the underage person. Just as two people who are related should not marry because such relationships would promote sexual intercourse that could potential harm the innocent (e.g., a child who might have developmental disabilities).

        It is your inability to draw rational lines that is the root of the problem. People should be able to marry whomever they choose so long as it does not harm others. I can anticipate your response: Marriage should be about a man and a woman because it’s best for society…we’ve hear the tired argument again and again…

        BUT stretch your mind for a moment. If marriage was really about society and pro-creation, then we wouldn’t allow women and men who are infertile to marry because they wouldn’t be able to have children. Of course, this is crazy. All we ask is that two people who love one another can marry when it does not hurt you or anyone else.

        Anyway, I know there is no changing your mind because your name (standing for truth) says it all — you think you’re right and are indifferent to other’s opinions. It’s sad, but as you pointed out you are in the minority.

        As a 30-something Catholic, I recognize the tide is changing and soon we will be in a society that supports equality for all! We’ve been here before, but Jesus prevailed as he will here. Praise the Lord!

        Lastly, I never called you or anyone with similar beliefs a “bigot” — again, you mis-characterize my statements, which is typical. I would never use that term, but instead I recognize that you are likely a good person despite your misguided attempts to discriminate against the innocent.

        • Micha_Elyi

          If you actually cared about the LBGT population you would not make statements that are blatently false, such as there is “NO evidence” that there is a predisposition to same sex attraction.

          Your own statement is “blatantly false” and if you actually cared about the LBGT population, you wouldn’t argue on their behalf by spreading falsehoods.

          Looks like the guilt-grenade you wanted to toss blew up in your own hand, bub.

          Now, getting back to what Standing4Truth actually wrote: “there is no evidence same-sex attraction is genetically determined”. If you have such evidence, put it up.

          Of course, I wouldn’t support the marriage of two individuals who would cause harm to one of those individuals or to another.

          Certainly a sham marriage (which is what so-called same-sex marriage is) “would cause harm to one of those individuals” involved.

          If marriage was really about society and pro-creation, then we wouldn’t allow women and men who are infertile to marry because they wouldn’t be able to have children.

          Nice try but no cookie. We absolutely know two people of the same sex are infertile. Thus there’s no sense at all in allowing them to exploit the same loophole that your rare absolutely infertile male-female couples might use. To do so would be – to use your own word – “crazy.”

          As a 30-something Catholic, I recognize the tide is changing and soon we will be in a society that supports equality for all! We’ve been here before, but Jesus prevailed as he will here. Praise the Lord!

          Not even Jesus “supports equality for all”. Rather, he warned that in the last day “some will be taken and some will be left.” (You may wish to pay attention to the daily Gospel readings proclaimed at Mass this week in which Jesus likens some to wheat and others to tares that will be gathered and burned – hardly a proclamation of “equality”.)

          • bh12001

            Well, clearly, rationale discourse doesn’t work with people on this blog. Rather than respond to all of the twisted interpretations of my post, I’m going to donate $6.50 (price of a meal at this “restaurant”) to the Human Rights Campaign in your honor. While I can’t negate your hateful speech, I can at least negate the money you spent at this establishment.

            As for your twisted views of religion — e.g., Not even Jesus ‘supports equality for all.’– that’s for you and your God to settle. While I’m shocked by this statement, it’s not me who has to answer for it.

            Despite your attempts to mis-characterize us as mean people and hurl passive aggressive insults at us, I hope one day you will recognize that people who stand up for LBGT equality are really normal, nice (and oh gasp – straight) people. No longer is the LBGT population marginalized, instead they are supported by a strong majority. You’re always welcome to join us on the side of social justice.

            I hope you have a wonderful day 🙂

          • bh12001, sorry you’re so upset, but I appreciate the charitable reply. A couple things:

            1. I can only speak for my own end of the discussion, but I don’t think anything was less than rational. I very calmly and logiclly explained why critiques I’ve heard from many same-sex-marriage supporting friends are baseless and offensive. Do you think any of the points in my original post were irrational? If so, which ones?

            2. You’re right that most people who support the LBGT agenda are nice. This has been my experience, too, and God bless them for it. I have several gay friends and they’re some of the nicest people I know.

            However that does not make them immune to bad arguments. You can be nice, and also wrong.

            Suppose, for instance, a friend says this four-sided object is a triangle, and that denying it the title of “triangle” would be anti-four-sided-objects and that if you won’t let it be called a triangle, you hate all four-sided objects. No matter how nice your friend is, he would still be wrong. Now obviously one would hope you could point out his fallacy with calm and clarity. That’s exactly the tone I’ve tried to take here. But an errors and error no matter how sincere or nice the proponent.

            All that to say that the niceness or meanness of same-sex-marriage advocates may say something about their character, and about the ethos of their movement, but it says nothing about their argument itself.

            Grace and peace!

            Your brother,

          • You’re right that most people who support the LBGT agenda are nice.

            While that’s charitable of you to say, recent events demonstrate a palpable viciousness within that set that doesn’t seem to be meeting much condemnation among the greater group.

        • CatholicMinnesotan

          “If marriage was really about society and pro-creation, then we wouldn’t allow women and men who are infertile to marry because they wouldn’t be able to have children. ”
          Actually, couples who cannot have reproductive intercourse, such as when the male is paralyzed from the waist down, cannot be married in the Catholic Church. Couples who find that they are infertile are encouraged to pray for a miracle (or patience) and attempt to adopt.
          Marriage as recognized secularly stems from the religious sacrament/ceremony.

        • Did everyone notice how we just morphed from “genetic attraction” to “predisposition” without so much as firing a synapse?

          Y’all and your thoughtcrimes. 2+2=5, haters. Get with it.

    • nananan


    • Philip

      So, you are saying that if someone has a genetic attraction to the same sex, then is perfectly normal and legitimate to act out on those attractions? If so, then all the people who are born with the attraction for children, that when they are adults and want to have sex with them, etc., it is their RIGHT.
      And again, if I was born an addict because my mother was an addict and used drugs when she was pregnant with me, then I have the right to use drugs whenever I want to. Being alcoholism is a disease, then alcoholic should not be discriminated against being able to drink whenever they have the attraction or desire for a drink. The same can be said for people who have a strong desire/attraction to hurt/kill people.
      Being a homosexual, drug addict, alcoholic, etc., is not wrong or sinful, it is the acting out of such urges and desires that is sinful and wrong.
      I believe one reason we are experiencing so many social problems is because we are suffering from what I call ‘me-ism’. Everything is about ME. It is what I want. What I deserve. What I am entitled to. The concern isn’t about what is best for the greater society/community etc.
      I also believe that this is also part of the reason there aren’t as many social functions happening in our communities. We are becoming an anti-social people. We are, by our nature, a social people governed by Natural Laws. When we violate those Natural Laws, the very fiber of our wellbeing as a communal people deteriorates.

      • RThomas845

        Not when those attractions are harmful to others (i.e., innocent children or murdering people) – those examples have nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Who is being harmed by allowing two people to get married? You categorize homosexual with drug addict and alcoholic – how are those alike? One of these things is not like the other 🙂 One has to do with an attraction to a person and the others are to drugs/alcohol. I’m sad that there are people who still believe it is a choice. You obviously haven’t grown up with a gay person. You know from a very young age, the only choice they are making is whether or not to be open with themselves and others about it and it’s people like you that make that one of the hardest decisions of their lives. Some choose to end their lives because of it. C’mon, really?

  • Scott

    Hi Brandon, this is my first time here — a friend just forwarded me your post. I’m hesitant to comment because I don’t want to sound like an anonymous outsider just butting in with my two cents before never coming back. I do feel compelled, however, to make one point.

    To be fair, your point #1 is leaving out a big piece of the puzzle. You’re absolutely right that just because someone is pro-traditional marriage doesn’t necessarily mean they are anti-gay. But in this particular case, Cathy is both very unapologetically pro-traditional marriage AND anti-gay (whether or not anyone agrees with his views is not the point I’m trying to make). The point is that people are protesting because he is very publicly donating a lot of money to groups that are anti-gay. They’re not protesting him because he wants to protect his right marry a straight woman or because he is “pro traditional marriage.” I think that’s an important distinction to make in hopes of increasing intelligent dialogue on this issue.

    • Scott, thanks for the comment! You’re not butting in. Your thoughts are more than welcome here.

      However there are a few things wrong with your assertions:

      1. Cathy is not anti-gay. As far as I know, he is not “against” gay people–as people–nor does he hate anyone with same-sex attraction. Claiming he is “anti-gay” is the exact mistake I reference above: assuming that because he supports traditional marriage he must be anti-gay-people.

      2. The recent outcry over the last week is *not* because his charity donates to pro-traditional marriage groups. If that was the real issue, then the loud outcry would have happened long ago since he’s been donating to groups like Family Research Council for years. The current outcry is specifically related to his recent comments in a Baptist newspaper, an interview that never once referenced gay people or same-sex marriage. The outcry was hardly a blip on the radar until that interview. However, once same-sex marriage reporters realized that they had no grounds to critique Dan Cathy as anti-gay based on the interview, they changed the source of their alarm to these donations.

      3. The donations themselves do not implicate Cathy as anti-gay. Unfortunately, people that work for some of the groups he donated to, like Family Research Council, have espoused personal beliefs that homosex should be criminalized. That’s wrong. However, that does not reflect Cathy’s own belief–there is no moral proximity. He cannot be held responsible for the warped personal beliefs of someone who works for a charity he donated to. An analogy may help: if I donate $10 to the Salvation Army and their president later says “all blacks should be arrested”, would that make me a racist? Of course not. We’d all agree that my donation had nothing to do with the president’s personal views. The same case holds for Cathy.

      • Allen

        Honestly, no one knows exactly what Cathy is thinking besides himself. I’m sure he is aware of the current stir up now. We can only go by what he’s done and how he responds. For instance, if he makes another contribution to the same charity, now knowing what it’s real aim is, we can all agree what his stance is.

        Still, as of my knowledge I do not believe Cathy has come out and clarified or rectified anything. That in itself speaks volumes, which is fine. He’s entitled to his opinions as everyone. He can even continue to support those charities, that’s fine. But more and more will have a hard time spending their money at a place that uses it to try and stifle a specific groups right to be happy. You have a beautiful family, and it seems, a fulfilled life. I have a feeling that that’s all they want to.

      • Scott

        You’re right, if I donate a million dollars to the Aryan Nation, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m a white supremacist. I get it. I understand the point you’re making and it’s a correct one.

        But again, you’re still missing the point I’m trying to make about Cathy.

        He is very openly and without a doubt anti-gay. He’s even said so. He’s proud of it. He’s not apologizing about it. He’s a traditionalist Christian who believes homosexuality is wrong and gays don’t deserve to be married. He uses biblical passages to support his views. He doesn’t think gays should have equal rights when it comes to marriage.

        Being anti-gay doesn’t necessarily mean you want to hurt gays or arrest them or you are abstractly “against” them, and it doesn’t mean that you don’t mind having their business and it doesn’t necessarily mean you aren’t against having gay friends. But when you think that gays don’t deserve certain rights or privileges just because they are gay then that’s anti-gay. When someone says “I’m not anti-gay; I have friends that are gay; I just don’t think gays should be allowed to get married” that’s someone who is anti-gay.

        People aren’t protesting him because he believes in that a marriage is between a man and a women, they are protesting him because he is actively promoting causes and agendas that oppose gay rights.

        • Hey Scott, thanks for the follow-up comment.

          There are a few things I take issue with, though:

          1. Cathy is not “openly and without doubt anti-gay.” Those are bold accusations that deserve proof. Please show me one quote where he says, “I am anti-gay” or “openly” admits to being opposed to gay people–not gay actions, gay people.

          2. Believing that two people cannot marry does not mean you are “against” them or “anti-” either one of them. For instance, I believe a child should not marry her father. That does not mean I am against parents or children. It does not mean I am anti-daughters or anti-fathers. It does not mean I am depriving either person of any natural rights. My rejection of their attempt to illicitly enter into a marriage says nothing of my value for them as human beings.

          3. You claim that “when you think that gays don’t deserve certain rights or privileges just because they are gay then that’s anti-gay.” This is not true, at least not always. It depends what those rights or privileges are. For example, if I claim that gay people don’t have the right to call four-sided objects “triangles,” nobody would call me anti-gay (at least I hope not.) I would simply be someone who believes nobody has the power to change a natural, innate definition. Likewise, if I tell a man he does not deserve the right to marry more than one woman at a time, I am not anti-man.

          4. I would totally agree with your entire comment *if* same-sex marriage was a natural right, which you seem to assume it it. If you’re right about that, then I agree: nobody would have any reason to prevent it. If you tried to prevent same-sex marriage, you would certainly be guilty of unjust discrimination.

          But same-sex marriage is not a natural right. Nor is “marrying whoever you want” an absolute right. The definition of marriage–i.e. what marriage is and purposes to do–precludes two people of the same-sex from entering into it (just as it precludes three people from marrying each other.)

          I hope this clears up some of the confusion and shows how one can be both supportive of people with same-sex attraction yet opposed to same-sex marriage.

          I believe that’s Cathy’s orientation, and it is certainly my own.

          • KC

            You know when you compare homosexuality to incest (something that can cause deformity in any born child) says a lot of your value of people who are homosexual.

          • CatholicMinnesotan

            I might remember this incorrectly, but those are both Sodomic Sins (Sins commited by sodomites which convinced God to wipe them off the face of the Earth), ergo they are comparable.

          • Ndirish2

            There is no higher rate of deformity in children born from incest as from any other random couple. That comes from flawed research, to help support the prevention of something we all just get an icky feeling about. And remember – homosexuals can’t reproduce that should be a good indication of its natural state.

          • Scott

            The bottom line is this: if you are opposed to same-sex marriage, then you are absolutely and by definition “anti-gay.” Really, it’s as simple as that; that’s the textbook definition of “anti-gay.” You can’t argue the definition of anti-gay, you simply can’t. No matter how many times you say Cathy is not “anti-gay” doesn’t make him not anti-gay. He and anyone else who votes against or is opposed to gays have equal marriage rights are anti-gay.

            Anti-gay — “An opposition to the perceived gay agenda, which can include same-sex marriage, gay rights and related topics.”

            Anti-gay — “opposed or hostile to homosexuals or to homosexual social reforms and institutions, etc.”

            Anti-gay — “against or opposed to gay ideas or gay people, or rights for gay people”

            Anti-gay — “prejudiced against or opposed to homosexuality or homosexuals”

            If you vote against same-sex marriage, then no matter what your perceived feelings are about gay people you are in fact anti-gay.

            This is the only point I’m trying to make. Anti-gay is anti-gay, so let’s not try to put lipstick on an anti-gay pig. 🙂

          • CatholicMinnesotan

            May I propose that there are two types of anti-gay? I admit to being one, yet always feel accused of the other.
            1) to be against the gay agenda with every fiber of one’s being. A more accurate term would be “anti-gay-agenda”.
            2) to hate gays. Truly “anti-gay”.
            I actually get accused of 2 for being 1! No (true) Christian is 2, but they should all be 1.

          • Allen

            I think you have a case of the “ick” factor–gay behavior is just gross to you. So they should not have the same rights as heterosexuals. Do you see how stupid this is?

          • Ndirish2

            Does that mean that since I’m pro-life that means I’m against woman rights? Seems like flawed logic.

          • kevmac1

            I agree with you, but sadly, I bet a lot of people would think so…

          • D_erford

            Yep, and since I do not believe blind people should be given driver’s licenses, I must be anti-blind people. Since I do not think 5-year-olds should be able to buy alcohol, I must be anti-5-year-olds. Since I do not think Asians should be allowed to vote for our President in the next election, I must be anti-Asian.

          • Helena

            Really? You don’t think Asian-Americans should be allowed to vote for our president? That does make you anti-Asian.

        • KC

          “You’re right, if I donate a million dollars to the Aryan Nation, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m a white supremacist. I get it. I understand the point you’re making and it’s a correct one.”

          No he’s not. This is basically where we’ve come to as a country. Basically if I’m being pedantic and turn my statement into a statistical statement based on absolutes, and my actions aren’t spelled out in exact terms then no one can call me out on the obvious be it racism, bigotry or hatred. Look at the response you’ve received.

          Under no certain circumstances should you ever even entertain the idea that someone who spends hours and hours of their time and money to prevent you from doing whatever isn’t against you. It doesn’t matter who you are.

          If I spend hours in line to get a chicken sandwich that would otherwise take me less than 5 minutes to receive I’m doing so for a reason, for a cause. And if the “appreciation” is based on the fact that a person or company is against your way of life you can be absolutely sure that the person willing to wait hours is doing so because they prefer that you were not who you were as a person.

          Spelled out in plain English it’s bigotry masquerading as just a extra special day to wait hours for a chicken sandwich.

          • Micha_Elyi

            Spelled out in plain English, Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is rejection of bullying that takes the form of an extra special day during which peaceful people peacefully wait hours for a chicken sandwich.

            Go ahead KC, keep up the bullying. Oh, and thanks for demonstrating that “gay” isn’t same-sex attraction but rather a political agenda. And there’s nothing inherently bigoted about opposing a perverted, destructive agenda.

            I’m beginning to enjoy just how frosted you and your fellow petty Sturm Abteilung wanna-bees have become because you’re being beaten by peaceful people enjoying chicken sandwiches.

          • KC

            There’s nothing peaceful about those people whatsoever. They are giving their money towards hate groups. There’s nothing peaceful about it.

          • Seanspartyofsix

            Disagreement does not equate to hate.

    • c matt

      Scott, I think the outrage (at least in my case) is not against people protesting his stated positions, but the mayors saying his views would cause them to deny him a permit. It’s one thing for average citizen joe or jane to say he disagrees/agrees with Mr. Cathey. No problem. But it’s completely different for a city official to say “your unrelated views will cost you a permit that otherwise you are entitled to.” That crosses the line.

      • KC

        Kind of like trying to get married if your homosexual. Oh the irony.

        • Micha_Elyi


          Nobody is “entitled” to “get married”.

          And marriage is possible for homosexuals.

          • Becky

            “And marriage is possible for homosexuals”
            Yes it is. Just like Anatole France said about the rich and poor.
            “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

        • CatholicMinnesotan

          Last I checked, Marriage was a privelege (if I spelled it right), not a right. Rights are guarranteed, and nothing else are you entitled to. Thus, gays, lesbians, straits, etc. are not entitled to a wedding. It has been determined that when one man marries one woman, it is most beneficial to the society in which it occurs. It has similarly been determined that any other marital arrangement is sinful and wrong.

          • KC

            Nope. It’s a right. It’s a legal agreement recognized by the federal government.

          • RThomas845

            Who “determined that any other marital arrangement is sinful and wrong” – your God? There are too many other people living in this world with different beliefs than your own. The government and religion should remain separate and the belief that same-sex marriage is sinful and wrong is most definitely a religious belief. Marriage is already a privilege to any that want to. It’s more a matter of it being recognized by the government. It’s the legal “rights” they are fighting for (i.e., the right to handle their dying life-long partner’s affairs) and all else that a person should be afforded for making the same commitment to another person.

          • CatholicMinnesotan

            Yes, God (not, incidentally, my god, The God) has determined this. However, so has almost every single religion still existing today that I have heard of, with the exception of mormonism (although they do believe that marriage is to be co-ed). This would imply that, while also being religious in nature, it is also societal and universal. I think you will find that the only religions who recognize such homosexual relationships as marriages did not do so until recently, say within the last 3-4 decades, which is like yesterday when seen in perspective of the age of most religions.

          • Elle

            You are not getting the point. A decision by the government to allow gay people should not be influenced by religion.

  • Great thoughts Brandon. The climate of the culture is so volatile these days, any disagreement seems to warrant these extremes. There’s so little tolerance among the self-professed tolerant. I wonder if it stems partially from the online culture of anonymity where people can say anything without face to face contact. Are people forgetting what it means to live in community with others?


    Good going, Brandon! I shared your FB post with my friends, and it was well-received. Like some of the other commentators, I get flack from some people when or if I state that I support the traditional marriage between one man and one woman. I’m getting used to it, though, but it hurts when it’s from loved ones.

  • Bob T

    very well done! We have to be tolerant of the same sex attraction views but if we state something that does not fit into their world all hell breaks loose….isn’t that bigotry….

  • Ian Rutherford

    Hope you enjoyed your paper bag of hate yesterday. I know our whole staff did.

  • FatherJasonWorthley

    Those are great insights, Brandon. Thanks for posting. I had someone call me a “socialist” and a “bigot” because I had a sundae from Chick-fil-A. Very strange times we are living in. It’s as if some people are opposed to the use of logic!

    • I can totally relate. Someone on Facebook commented on the picture above of our family at Chick-Fil-A saying, “wonderful portrait of a hateful America.”


      • Ah, the intolerance of the “tolerant”. Welcome to 1984.

    • CatholicMinnesotan

      They are called Liberals

    • Fr Vaske

      Logic? What’s logic? Sounds like something worn out and arcaic. LOL heheheh

  • NurseTammy

    It would be really nice if the poor logic you detail so accurately above just came at me from the media, but as a mom of young adults (in their rebellion phase) I got whopping yelling accusations from them in the middle of my kitchen after they asked me if I went to ChickFilA yesterday (I didnt, it was too crowded, but I wanted to). Im not a hater and I welcome thier gay friends into my home, but simply disagreeing with them is enough to catch the full fury of these ill-concieved accusations.

    I will really be relieved when the “mom is stupider than a stone” phase is over.

    • Mike James

      Kick ’em out, and tell them they can come back when they remember the proper way to treat their mother. I can’t imagine my dad putting up with that sort of thing from me at any age. Old fashioned, he is.

      • I would like to “like” this about 8 times Mike.

      • CatholicMinnesotan

        You’re dad is nicer than mine. I’d have to have been dug up after that statement!

    • Jake G

      i agree, kick em out, I would never treat my mother like that, and she would never tolerate being treated like that. And when I have kids, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I would tolerate that

      • Hannah

        Just exactly would you do to your kids for having opinions you don’t have yourself? Last I looked, child abuse was still against the law.

  • Charles Mac Kay

    Dead right – well done

  • D_erford

    Thank you for these points. It is very frustrating to try to have a civil and beneficial conversation with those who cannot see the distinctions you bring up.

    I find it interesting that the pro-gay-marriage response is going to be a “kiss-in” this Friday at Chick-Fil-A’s. What does it say about their understanding of intimacy when they use something meant to be a sign of affection between two people as a protest tool? In other words, a kiss is meant to be a personal sign of love “for the other,” but they are going to use it, assuming they will not be paying customers, as an in-your-face and disruptive act of protest.

    Also, I feel like a poor father because my 9-month-old daughter is only contemplating the beatitudes, not transubstantiation like your son. Hopefully we will get there by the time she is 1.

    • Hey, they can’t all be Little Aquinas’ right? She might have to settle for Baby Mother Teresa. 🙂

    • Micha_Elyi

      Don’t fret much about that “kiss-in” stuff. Dave Burge, the satirist Iowahawk, has already stuck a pin into that bubble.

  • Truth! I also think a major part of the problem is that people let emotions on this topic get in the way. Not that emotions are bad, but basing your philosphy or beliefs on emotion will probably get you in trouble.

  • Line_Four_Guy

    Here’s my opinion on everything


  • Good for you and thanks for the definitions of how we all should treat one another. It is all based on “Love Your Neighbor” right? We may not like our neighbor and his comments or beliefs but we are called to love him.


  • Great points! Beautiful family!! God bless!

  • Bovious

    Thanks for saying “failure” instead of “fails.” Also you’re right.

  • I don’t know, Brandon – the one in the carrier looks mighty displeased about not getting his own order of waffle fries…

    You have a great looking family.

    Oh, and your four points are excellent.

    • Larry, thanks for both compliments. It may look like baby Augustine is pining for some french fries, but he’s actually contemplating the metaphysics of transubstantiation.

      Don’t worry; easy mistake.

      • CatholicManiac

        OK. How did you get your wife to agree to call the baby Augustine? We have a son and she came up with Becket for St. Thomas Becket. When I tell her that we need an Aquinas to go with Becket or at least an Augustine (I even was willing to compromise and call him Gus), the looks I receive could wither stone unto dust.

        • RUTH_ANN

          I love that name: Catholic Maniac! I think it would fit me, but I won’t steal it from you.

        • The trick was to keep emphasizing Ephesians 5:22 while simultaneously suppressing Ephesians 5:21, 23.

          • Micha_Elyi

            Ha ha. Can’t fool us. Admit it, it was your wife’s idea – probably thinks “Augie” is a cute nickname.