An Open Letter To Chick-fil-A COO Dan Cathy - By Matty Jacobson

Matty Jacobson edits and contributes to The Skewed Review.

THE SKEWED REVIEW | NEWS & POLITICS | ACTIVISM | RELIGION

Tweet

Dear Mr. Cathy,

I am but a lowly consumer who has rarely eaten at a Chick-fil-A (mostly because they aren't in my area), and I'm writing to you in regards to your message of marriage as defined by The Bible.

And, truly, this is a letter to all who continue to try and convince me that The Bible defines a marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

I will always support your right to believe whatever it is you want to believe, Mr. Cathy, as I would hope you would support my right to do the same. However, I would hope in your attempt to be credible you would cite sources that actually support your argument. I would like to suggest you change your source material, since it doesn't actually stick to the definition you claim.

You said in an interview that "[Chick-fil-A is] 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."

I can only assume that you are in favor of Adam's marriage then--to his first wife, Lilith, and that his marriage to Eve was just fornication, correct? OK, I'm splitting hairs, here. Lilith isn't included in most of the versions of the Bible we use in America today. So obviously her omission from sacred text means she never existed. By no means am I insinuating that early editors of The Bible would have the audacity to remove, add or change text to fit political or personal agendas.

Alright, fine. I am insinuating just a little.


But that's beside the point. Sort of. You're main focus is that The Bible's definition of a family is a man, a woman, and as many children as possible. Well, according to The Bible, the definition of a family is one man and multiple wives. In fact, a marriage between one man and one woman is rarely mentioned in The Bible.

But, starting in Genesis 4:19, The Bible just gets jiggy-wit-it when it comes to polygamy. Check out this first passage that mentions multiple wives: "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah."

Those are some pretty bitchin' names.

But furthermore, according to The Bible, your wife should pretty much be chosen from a bunch of slaves. How about this passage from Deuteronomy 21: "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails..."

Well, the verses go on to talk about how your slave wife should "bewail" (a.k.a. denounce) her parents for a month, and then you, the man, should have sex with her in order to make her your wife. But it gets really juicy in Deuteronomy 21:14: "And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

Damn, Mr. Cathy. Damn. So essentially, according to this text, if you're not sexually satisfied by your slave wife, then you're well within your rights to dump her. You just can't sell her. The passages go on to talk about first born sons from first wives having all sorts of rights--even if you hate your first born son.

Cool. By the Biblical definition, I am owed half of everything my father owned. OK, I guess I'm on board.

But let's not dwell on old Deuteronomy. Let's move on to the book of Judges. How about 8:30, to be specific: "And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives." The passages then go on to describe his wives as "his concubine."

The list of Biblical multiple wives goes on, and the book literally has men treating their wives as property rather than things they must cherish. There are literally too many famous Biblical figures who practiced concubinism (that's my word, so make sure to attribute it to me once you've adopted it for your own life) to name.

Holy crap! First Kings 11 talks about Solomon with much fervor: "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines." That tiger!

But this is all Old Testament stuff. I know. How is it relevant to today's nuclear family? Well, uh, exactly? These passages, along with myriad others, fully endorse multiple wives and concubines--without apology. So, technically, that's the Biblical definition of a marriage. This is the same text you draw your laws from that supposedly denounces the love between two people of the same gender. This must be what you believe, then.

So, Mr. Cathy, my message to you is to at least be consistent in your arguments.

Or, wait a minute, in your same interview, you said, "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

Fine, I'll look the other way when it comes to the sheer hypocrisy of this quote, and I'll just assume that you are ordained to speak on behalf of God (henceforth, you shall be known as the High Ordained Chicken Friar). Perhaps you are practicing what you preach. Perhaps we are not privy to your personal life, which, I can only assume, is full of wives and concubines. Slaves and whores. Property and vessels for children.

You're either condemning marriage between one man and one woman by telling us you are adhering to the Biblical definition of marriage, or you're simply ignoring the parts of the Bible you don't like. And you would never do something like that, now would you?

Sincerely yours,
Matthew James Jacobson