A Gay Man, and Dan Cathy, in Search for Solidarity

01.29.2013, 8:20 PM

On this, the day that the Institute releases the “New Conversation on Marriage,” I found this story by LGBT leader Shane Windmeyer about his unlikely friendship with Chik-fil-A president Dan Cathty truly remarkable.

Some things that struck me.

“We both wanted to be respected and for others to understand our views. Neither of us could — or would — change.  It was not possible.  We were different but in dialogue.  That was progress.”

“Dan sought first to understand, not to be understood.”

“ I will not change my views, and Dan will likely not change his, but we can continue to listen, learn and appreciate “the blessing of growth” that happens when we know each other better.”

“In the end, it is not about eating (or eating a certain chicken sandwich). It is about sitting down at a table together and sharing our views as human beings, engaged in real, respectful, civil dialogue.  Dan would probably call this act the biblical definition of hospitality. I would call it human decency.  So long as we are all at the same table and talking, does it matter what we call it or what we eat?”

They are not ignoring their serious moral differences. They are not pretending that they don’t exist. But they are also refusing to let those moral differences polarize them, and they appear to be trying to find those things that bind them together.  They appear to be seeking solidarity.

Bravo!


3 Responses to “A Gay Man, and Dan Cathy, in Search for Solidarity”

  1. Mont D. Law says:

    Cathy’s best hope for expansion is colleges. I’m not surprised he coseyed up to Campus Pride, they were the biggest obstacle he faced. It may even work, but I doubt it. Like Komen, his brand is now crap among college students and my guess is Campus Pride’s brand will shortly join them.

  2. Kevin says:

    Let’s have all this discussion and forging alliances and friendships AFTER marriage equality is implemented. Then we can work out our “differences” and be civil, and talk about how valid biblical views are to civil marriage. Then we can talk about whether it is moral it is to deny equal legal rights to people because of their sexual orientation.

    I’ll bet the when same-sex marriage is legal everywhere (more or less), the anti-gays will feel a lot less chatty and civil, since they won’t be in possession of the status quo.

    So what do you say, anti-same-sex marriagers: can we all work together to deliver equal legal rights to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, and then, and only then, talk about the need for biblical marriage/the parenting needs of children/thousand year old traditions that are not to be changed?

  3. Peter Hoh says:

    The Boy Scouts are also signaling a willingness to change — albeit slowly. They are considering allowing local Boy Scout organizations to decide whether or not to allow gays to participate.

    Writing in The American Conservative, Scott Galupo frames this as a victory for civil society.