Editorial Cartoon: Chick-fil-A and Same Sex Marriage

Editorial Cartoon Chick Fil A Gay Marriage

Given the subject matter of Monday’s cartoon, I wasn’t promoting the Editorial Cartoon studio so now you owe me at least 2 votes this posting.  The Cartoonist Studio Editorial Cartoon Contest continues and I made it to week SEVEN!  Thanks to all for voting.  Click the image above or here to go to the voting.  You should do a search of “Bearman” and my cartoon will come up front and center and then vote.  Some people were clicking the link and then accidentally voting on the first thing that popped up.  Unfortunately no way to direct link to my cartoon.  Again, as long as I stay in the contest, there will be two editorial cartoons a week to vote on – Mondays and Thursdays.   Oh and you can vote multiple times in each round if you want (resets every six hours) until EOD Saturday.  And thanks to Jande Rowe at E-Orbits for the great photoshop brush I used in the background of this cartoon.  You can get that one and several others free on her site.


OK folks sit back and relax because this is going to take some explaining and I am sure in the process I am going to piss off someone on either side of this debate.  It seems historically that a hot button issue during an election year is Abortion.  People hate discussing it because you are marginalized at one extreme or the other.  Not me.  Want to know where I stand?   I am against it.  HOWEVER, I am not sure that gives me the right to say it should be illegal.  So for personal reasons I am against it but legally I am more on the fence.

Seems this year the hot button issue will be Gay Marriage.  First, I am all for gay marriage and couples being afforded the same rights as I have to commit to one another and therefore have the government recognize that bond including adoption, hospital visitation rights, survivorship benefits, etc.  Does that  mean I will be upset, if as in England, they call it a “Civil Partnership” instead of “Marriage”.  No but that is just my opinion because I think the rights are more important than the word.

Well no one has done more to bring on the topic this week than Chick-Fil-A President and CEO Dan Cathy.  You see it is no secret that Chick-fil-A runs as a Christian based company.  They have been closed on Sunday’s since inception and tend to donate money to faith based organizations. So it should come as no surprise that when interviewed by The Baptist Press that he would come out in favor of “Traditional Marriage.”   Yet to read comments by bloggers and the press, you would have thought he came out picketing with the “God Hates Fags” assholes from the Westboro Baptist Church.

Here is what was actually reported in the original article:

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.

No bashing.   So once again, whether you are in favor of same-sex marriage or not, it is unfair to marginalize the other side.   People have their own reasons for being for or against it and we don’t have to always demonize them for their stance.  Westboro Baptist…hell yes they should be marginalized.  But what about the people that oppose it for reasons other than thinking the gay community is an abomination.   Should they all be bigots?

Moreover, is it the government’s responsibility to mandate away businesses that politicians don’t agree with?  Or should people do it with their wallets and boycott those businesses if they choose?  In Chicago, an Alderman has proposed shutting down Chick-fil-A’s request to build in his neighborhood because of the remarks.   Ken at Popehat had this take when describing a similar action the Mayor of Boston tried to take:

I think that rich people donating millions to anti-gay causes promotes evil in the world — though they have every right to do it. But I’m far more afraid of government thuggery than private evil philanthropy. Menino appears to be speaking disingenuously and ass-dampy when he talks about Chick-Fil-A “opening their policies.” I haven’t seen any evidence that Chick-fil-A discriminates in hiring or service. Rather, they give money to a cause I despise, one that promotes social discrimination. But the government doesn’t get to pick and choose what social causes are permissible, and any government actor who aspires to that power is a lowlife thug.

So the Jim Henson Company saying we don’t want to partner with Chick-fil-A anymore is a perfect example of private organizations taking a perfectly reasonable response.   A Mayor/Alderman saying we are going to block you from even building in the area is wrong.

So to my friends who are against Gay Marriage:  Is it the entire idea of it or is it just the word choice?  If the word choice alone, great…let’s change our discourse to say that you are open to legally binding federally recognized union that is called something other than “marriage”    So those who feel Marriage is a religious thing between a man and a woman get to keep the word but gay couples get to have the rights.

And to my friends who are for Gay Marriage:  Please don’t use this political cycle to bash Mitt Romney for his stance against it.  If you think he is a bigot for opposing it, remember, if you voted for Obama in the last election then you voted for just as big of a bigot because it was only recently he came out in favor (and even then his hand was forced by Biden).

Comment away…but as always, let’s be civil.

About Bearman Cartoons

Previous/Next Posts

92 Responses to “Editorial Cartoon: Chick-fil-A and Same Sex Marriage”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Red says:

    I am going to say the unpopular. Marriage is religious, but the civil union created by it is a contract which should be available to anyone of any faith (or no faith) of any sex. No one’s rights are impinged by two men (or two women) signing the contract.

    If you look at the statistics so far, they are just as likely to hate it as much as heterosexual couples. Their divorce rate statistics have already begun.

    • Friggin Loon says:

      LOL Red. No matter what you call it and no matter what the sex, divorce is a lurking in the shadows. Humans huh?

    • jynksie says:

      I agree with Reds statement, its less about the word, more about the equality. My wife and I married under what would be considered a “civil union”, since it wasn’t in a church or performed by a religious figure. There was an intention to go the religious route, but when the priest mocked the faith my parents raised me under, my wife denounced him and that was the last time she ever set foot in his church.

      A loving relationship by two consenting adults who desire to build a life and grow old together does nothing to hurt family values, it only enhances them.

      Even if you looked at the idea from a cynical standpoint, in my view, heterosexual couples should embrace marriage equality for the simple reason, misery LOVES company! [smirk] …lets all wallow in the bondage of matrimony together!

  2. Scott says:

    I’ve known some closed-minded conservatives–but the most closed-minded people I’ve ever known were all liberals! “Open-mindedness” is not synonymous with “liberalism”. Open-mindedness is considering all points of view–conservative, liberal, and otherwise–before reaching a conclusion about what one believes.

    • Bearman says:

      I have seen Conservatives tend not to (or not be able to) defend their closed mindedness.

      I have seen Liberals claim they can’t be closed minded simply because they are liberal.

  3. Friggin Loon says:

    It’s getting to a stage where I feel like handing my life over to politicians and saying “Here, you live it!” .

  4. G. B. Miller says:

    Yeah, it’s a touchy subject and when you work for a state government like I do, you really have to watch your P’s & Q’s when it comes to gay marriage/gay lifestyle.

    But my viewpoint has evolved over the years, mostly due to talking to rational people on the other side of the fence. Rational people, like yourself for example, are few and far between in this debate.

    For the record, while I do oppose gay marriage, my opposition has dropped down to the word “marriage”. To me, “marriage” will always mean “man & woman”.

    If it was called like they call it England, my opposition would probably drop down even more.

    Is it inevitable? Absolutely. Should we force people to accept and crucify them if they don’t? Absolutely not.

    • Bearman says:

      Interesting that in England it is the Conservative politicians that NOW want to change the distinction from Civil Partnership to Marriage. Read one article where the gay community is like WTF, that is the least of our concerns now because we already have the rights. There are more important things on our agenda, like violence toward the group.

      • G. B. Miller says:

        Hmmm…I always get the the Conservatives across the pond confused with ours. Are the Conservatives there the equivalent of Liberals here?

        Anyways, I definitely understand the concern about violence. A good co-worker’s son recently came out to her and everyone else, and believe it or not, he actually got punished in separate incidents for defending himself against a few homophobic slurs and a minor assault.

  5. Your right, everyone is entitled to their opinion so long as it doesn’t intentionally hurt others. I’m in support of someone marrying who they love, no matter what. Will I ever boycott Chik-fil-a? Probably not. I might not see eye-to-eye with them on this topic, but if the world was always in total agreement on everything we would never have conversation.

  6. Jande says:

    Thanks for the shout out about the my custom brushes, Bearman. I hope you find many uses for them. Playing around with the scatter sliders can make them even more fun. Also changing the colour saturation from time to time will enhance the texture depth. I’m not familiar with Photoshop Elements brush controls, so I’m hoping you can make those kinds of changes.Looking forward to seeing what else you learn to do with them.

    Your cartoon today is a call for people to be reasonable and not go around demonising people for their beliefs. Most of our beliefs aren’t based on rational thinking. Many are the products of unquestioned and constantly reinforced beliefs of others before we’d reached an age where we could ferret out the difference between belief and truth (if not the truth itself). If I’ve learned one thing in this long life, it is this: respecting the beliefs of others is paramount, even if you believe differently from them.

    We can’t always condone what others believe, but we can still treat people with respect, enter into respectful dialogue with them, give them and ourselves the time to reflect, and something may change for the better. It might even be our own beliefs that change. That’s a difficult thing sometimes. But, where there is respect, fear is diminished and where fear is diminished, there is a chance for greater understanding. The less we demonise others, the fewer demons there are to fear.

    I’m getting preachy. I’ll stop now. :`)

    • Bearman says:

      Definitely. Hope others find good use of them as well. PHotoshop Elements controls work pretty much the same. So I will definitely place with adjusting. That is the area I am weakest anyway with brushes is changing existing ones.

      It would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed with each other all the time. I love the last two sentences of your comment.

      “But, where there is respect, fear is diminished and where fear is diminished, there is a chance for greater understanding. The less we demonise others, the fewer demons there are to fear.”

  7. Yep not going to touch this one with a ten foot poll.

  8. Comedy Plus says:

    Yes everyone has a right to their own opinion. The sad part in all of this is if you are on the wrong side of the argument then you are disrespected beyond belief. That’s the part that makes me cringe. We need to respect each others opinion.

    Have a terrific day. 🙂

  9. George says:

    I hate giving my own personal opinion when it comes to sensitive subjects. You’ve really opened a can of whup-ass…I mean, worms here.

    As a self-proclaimed nice guy, I try to agree with whomever I’m with, particularly if they’re bigger and more violent than I am. My wife and I have discussions like this all the time. The only thing I will admit to is that my wife is against abortion and I’m quite fond of the procedure. I don’t hate anyone who’s against it. It’s your choice, and ladies, it’s your body. Do what you wish with it.

    I believe same-sex marriages were created for legal reasons. Why should anyone spend all of their time, energy, and finances together with someone else only to find out later down the line that they have no rights and no opportunity to claim certain things that were purchased or attained in the name of love and partnership.

    If i go into business with you and it somehow dissolved, then I am legally capable of reaping some of my investment. With long-term gay relationships, they didn’t even have the luxury of common-law benefits. So, I can certainly see the desire for a legal marriage of that sort. That’s all I’ll say regarding that until I have my own castle on an island and my face is on the money.

    However, I will admit, I am still one of those neanderthal-minded guys who is “cautious” (NOT hateful or mean) around male homosexuality, but think that lesbians are hot. Yeah, “I’m stoopid and I know it”.

    • Bearman says:

      I have always had the opinion at work and at home that I don’t hold back my opinion. I always say at work, the worst thing they can do is fire me. On here, the worst thing people can do is stop coming.

      I have been told though that my diplomacy skills are so good that I can tell someone when they are being an asshole at work and at the end, they still love me. Maybe that should be my next career.

      ” I try to agree with whomever I’m with,”…another reason your wife married you.

  10. Nate Fakes says:

    My take is let them just be happy. I mean, they get one life like the rest of us. I don’t know what it’s like to be gay, but I do know it doesn’t affect me in anyway with whatever they do, so let em’ just get married. Shouldn’t even be a big deal.

    I’m surprised they don’t have all the biblical characters in their kids meal? I’d like to see a Muppet Christ child.

    • Bearman says:

      Personally I am having so much fun in this life I think I will take a few more if that is OK. Hello…?? Anyone listening? Can I have extra??

  11. I am personally for gay marriage… as others here have said, people should have the right to marry who they love. I don’t feel threatened by gay people. As far as Dan Cathy goes, why give his opinion about it in the first place? He’s just some guy who inherited a fast food business from his Daddy. It seems a dumb thing to do if you are running a business… it’s only going to alienate customers… especially when making a gem of a statement like this:

    “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about…”

    • Bearman says:

      I guess my response is that he is a guy of Christian faith talking to a Christian based magazine. Where else would he feel comfortable saying it?

      And honestly I applaud him in some ways. There are those who give lip service to their beliefs (and not just talking religious). Even though I wholeheartedly disagree with him, at least I know where he stands and can debate him from that point. This is different than those who will say one thing to your face and really believe something else.

  12. Whether anyone agrees with Chick-fil-a on this doesn’t really matter. They have the right to have any opinion they want. There is some courage in taking a stand when it could hurt your business. It may not be good business to make such a stand, but it is their right to do so. The free-market will have it’s say. All that said I do have a problem with the Jim Henson toy recall they did. It’s seems very dishonest to me. Maybe it was bad timing but it sure likes retaliation to me. To say there was a “safety issue” is extreme. If it’s not true that there really is a safety issue, it breaks at least 2 of the 10 commandmenst. Thou shall not lie and do not bear false witness. It’s ok to take a moral stand, but breaking a moral code to do it seems counter productive.

    • Bearman says:

      Good point Barry. I am not sure if that image of the reason they took the toys out was from the “company” or it was just one store that took their own initiative. Hard to say.

      • While the photo was isolated it does appear the recall is real. They do claim however it was announced the day before Henson ended their partnership. I guess it could be a coinicedence.

  13. starla says:

    I voted as usual :+) I should go back and vote later just for the courage it must take to tip toe through these mine fields. :+)

  14. Lynn says:

    Wow, it’s close today with you and three others! I’m doing what I can!! I’ve been VERY busy pulling stuff together on my end with the Project- lots of new and exciting things on the horizon. Should be fun for all. Still though, trying to pop in when I can- you know, for appearances. (I have a reputation to uphold) 🙂 LOON! Don’t go there……

    • Bearman says:

      I think your reputation precedes you. Keep me posted on when you announce something with the project so I can help spread the word

  15. Tony McGurk says:

    No comment on this one…

    The following is not a comment on the subject but just a past experience:
    I came across a news website some months ago reporting on 2 gay men who won a kissing contest. I simply said in the comments “Men kissing other men? Ewww gross” which to me it is. To others it may not be.
    For that comment I was attacked like you wouldn’t believe by lots of gay people & labelled a hateful homophobic bigot. Accused of “spreading my own brand of hatred across the internet”, and many other vile accusations that I won’t repeat. I replied by saying that I said nothing hateful but just expressed my opinion just as the gay community has a right to their opinions & was viciously attacked once again. So much for respecting people’s rights to have their say…

    • Bearman says:

      I personally don’t find anything titillating about two men kissing. In fact watching a man and a woman kissing (if I am not the man looking in the mirror) is pretty gross too.

  16. lisleman says:

    I wish we could just hose down all the “hot” social issues and just get the economy going a little stronger. I don’t know for sure but a growing gay marriage industry might create jobs.

  17. Binky says:

    Was I supposed to read all that?
    I just come here for the pictures.

  18. James says:

    That will shut him up. Great work as per usual.

  19. Scholar Mel says:

    What do people expect from a Christian based organization? Would they rather they come out for gay marriage? Wouldn’t that make them a hypocrite?

    The rest of the gay marriage topic is too touchy to really dive into.

    Thanks for explaining it because I didn’t really understand the story before this.

    Are you going to do a comic on the lady from Greece?

  20. Bo Lumpkim says:

    I have very strong opinions on these subjects but have learned that just because I have an opinion doesn’t mean I have to share it with everyone on the internet. Sometimes when I find a subject controversial or offensive I just don’t comment. For the record I don’t hate anyone…I hate some actions and find some things repulsive but I don’t hate people. If I don’t agree with a business and it’s political agenda I don’t spend my money with that business.

    If I published all my opinions and what I really believe I doubt that I would have many friends left on the internet. Not much way I can have an influence on people who don’t like me Chic-Filet.

    • Bo Lumpkim says:

      Part of the last comment was lost. It was supposed to say _Not much way I can have an influence on people who don’t like me. Now I think I will go have some Chic-Filet.

    • Bearman says:

      Sometimes when I find a subject controversial or offensive, I HAVE to comment. haha

  21. tmcelmurry says:

    Those who know me, including my many gay friends, no where I stand on this subject and that is I do not agree with legalizing “Gay Marriage”. It is definitely the wording and the governments approach at forcing hands to bend to their stance on it. Marriage as defined in the Dictionary is ” the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”. This has always been the case until in the 60’s when Marriage and the legality of it in the Law came into question because of Interracial Marriages (this is where Bigotry comes in). Because of certain people of authority a definition had to be determined by the government on what Marriage was, until then it was always based on the definition and Government did not have any involvement other than “Register that license for taxes”.

    Here’s where it starts to get gray. A man and woman can live together for a long time and then they categorize it as a “Common Law Marriage” and in a state where it is recognized it is then recognized Federally. Once again, the Government is defining for us what a Marriage is, but allowing the States to determine it. So if the states can determine what a Common Law Marriage is, shouldn’t they be given the liberty to determine their stance on “Gay Marriage”…Yes, yes they should. Federal government can recognize if a state decides it is valid, so let that just be the case. I’ll live with their decision if the elections of my state say that’s what the majority decides…not what Washington decides, but what my State Decides. Majority Rule. But I, nor my business should be criticized for disagreeing. Imagine how boring this world would be if we all just agreed to everything and didn’t have opinions and views.

    Now back to businesses. A businesses view, their values,etc. should never be used against them. Yes if the business has a sign up that states “No Gays Allowed” well there’s your bigotry and that should be brought up. If they are discriminating employees and customers, then yes. But if a CEO, President, etc. states they do not agree with “Gay Marriage” just like Chick-Fil-A did, that’s not the same as them saying we do not allow Gays to work here, eat here, etc. So no Bigotry has been committed, only an expression of their stance. Now I know you can take the definition of a Bigot (Websters: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”)and say “Well see, it says Obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his/her opinions”, but doesn’t that make those that are of the Opinion to be for “Gay Marriage” just as much bigots against those that aren’t then? Yes it would. To classify as a Bigot you have to take that extra step forward and see the “Especially:” part. “One who regards or treats members of a group with hatred or intolerance”. Chick-Fil-A is not doing that, Cathy is not doing that. If they were acting out as the Westboro nut jobs are then yes,categorize them as Bigots. But if I make the statement “I don’t agree with homosexuality and Gay Marriage, and will never promote it in my family or in my business” I have just stated my stance, and have not demeaned or shown any hatred towards a group, race, or person. My Christian faith leads me to love everyone, to show God’s love to them. But also, my Christian faith leads me to show my values in my day to day walk. So I have to take my stand, I have to lead my family based off my beliefs and convictions. I can’t be luke warm. God states in the Bible to be either Hot or Cold, don’t be luke warm or he will spit you out. So don’t hate me or my family for our views, cause I can guarantee you we don’t live by hate nor do we promote it.

    Like I mentioned when I started, I have several gay friends and each of them know I love them and care for them more than myself and would do anything for them. But yet at the end of the day they also know my convictions and where I stand and will always stand and we just agree to be the best we can to one another regardless of what the Government says or does, it will not change our relationship with each other.

    • Bearman says:

      Thanks Todd for that well thought out response. My only question with leaving it up to the states is does common law states get all the same rights and benefits of federal law that a marriage would federally? I looked up and I know Social Security would but don’t know about other things.

      I think it takes courage to be able to express your beliefs without fear of someone blasting you for them. And as I said in my post…No I don’t think you should be labelled a bigot just for having a different opinion on a hot topic. Having expressed this view on G+ as well…not everyone agrees with me. So be it.

  22. A.M. Frasier says:

    Much like the last sentence after your question, ” Let’s be civil” I think thats something we’re still striving towards in this country. A wholistic civility of ideas. We (as amercicans…and people period)often think with narrow minds for ourselves rather then with a broader perspective for the wealth of the common greater good. For a person against gay marriage or civil union the question is, “On a grander scale how does gay marriage affect you?” for those gay and in a long term relationship what would marriage/civil union do for them?
    In other words as a heterosexual male that believes in marriage of a man and a woman I don’t feel I have the right to vote into place a law stopping two people of the same sex, who love each other and are taking care of each other, from being married. Marriage or civil union technically the same different syntax.. History has shown words and their meaning change. Perhaps the definition of marriage should have a make over.
    I’ve blabbed enough:)

    • Bearman says:

      Civility is lost especially in politics. No more is it what do you want, what do I want and lets try to find some compromise. Now it is I want this or nothing and we sit around and do nothing for 2 years until a new group of people make up the majority. Then we sit around for 2 years until the next group gets power and reverses it.

  23. My attitude about this situation is this: This guy is entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else. He sells chicken, he’s not a politician. Who cares what he thinks about anything non-chicken related?

  24. Binky says:

    This post is turning into the Encyclopedia Britannica!

  25. Scholar Mel says:

    Reading these comments, I am beginning to get hungry for Chicken… Mmmm… peanut oil chicken. 🙂

    I think that the political mascots should also be changed from elephant/donkey to cow/chicken.

  26. Nef says:

    The main problem I see is that government and religion are steppibng on each other’s toes. In my view, marriage is a religious institution, and as such it is incumbent upon religions to regulate it. However, marriage is also considered a civil contract, as as such, it behooves the state to regulate it.

    Both sides are right on their arguments, because religions have the right to limit the definition of marriage as it belongs to them, but the state cannot discriminate on the basis of gender regarding who is eligible to sign a contract. This is and will continue to be an irreconciliable difference, unless one of the organizations steps back and the common ground stops.

    My proposed solution would be to have the state move away from the business of marriage and leave that to the religious institutions. To protect the rights of its citizenry, the state can authorize partnership contracts that any two (or more, to go with your poligamy comments) consenting adults can enter into. This does not need to be called marriage at all.

    This way, the state does not discriminate, and it leaves the “marriage” word for the use of religious institutions to use as they will. By the way, in my scenario, if a person wants rights granted by the state for their marriage, all they have to do is sign a partnership agreement as well, and file it in the proper place.

    • Bearman says:

      I think that is similar to several other countries where you actually have to go through two ceremonies. One civil and one religious. Once the government here realized they could make money off the practice they butted in.

Previous/Next Posts