Are we overrun with demonstrations?

Is it possible the demonstrations are becoming like television commercials -- once you have seen them you don't need to be beaten to death with more? It seems there are demonstrations to support demonstrations or the "right" to demonstrate. Are there so many unemployed people that almost any cause can lead to a crowd, carrying signs to influence the television networks, who obviously need something to report or they can't have anything for their newscasts? Demonstrations have had an effect on our society forever, I guess. Women earned the right to vote, workers obtained the right to organize unions and Little Rock schools were integrated through the efforts of some who chose to demonstrate, violent and non-violent, for their cause. Recently we had demonstrations in Ferguson, Mo., overflow to other cities complaining about police brutality. Now we are dealing with multiple demonstrations against a piece of legislation by states' governing bodies, that a special-interest group claims leads to their being discriminated against.

No doubt there will be many who oppose my comments and maybe some will threaten to "demonstrate in retaliation," but we are way past the point of common sense and respect for other's views. It was frustrating to me to see our governor, Asa Hutchinson, whom I know and supported from his very first campaign many years ago, fail to sign legislation passed by our state legislators, under pressure from the news media's involvement. Even Wal-Mart's CEO publicly expressed his opinion about it and I don't understand why Wal-Mart would chose to get involved in an action designed specifically to protect small business owner's spiritual views.

The newest cause seems to be from those wanting the freedom to have same-sex unions with all the benefits that the term "marriage" provides heterosexual couples.

Some states provide for same-sex marriages, some do not. Is the question about the term "marriage," the benefits that come with the relationship, or do we need to look more closely at our society and where we want to be a generation from now? Can every one have their needs met and allow us to live happily ever after?

Somewhere back in my youth, and this might apply to others besides myself, I was taught the word "marriage" was a sacred word to express a condition entered into by a man and a woman. No doubt there are others who view the word differently and I respect that difference. Our personal view of the word marriage depends on our training and what we see in the union of husband and wife and their purpose in the signing of a legal document. Hopefully marriages last a life-time but not all do for various reasons and my first marriage did not. But that does not take away my personal view of the expectation of the relationship. Should I be expected to accept someone else's definition at the expense of my own value system?

Wouldn't it be easier to pass legislation to allow same-sex couples to have the legal benefit that the marriage document carries with it into the world and give it another acceptable title? The last time I looked at my Arkansas (Benton County) marriage license it listed my name (as husband ?) as "Mr." Leo E. Lynch, in one place and my wife's name in another preceded by "Miss." Doesn't that call for a man and woman or do we redefine the term husband and wife by something else?

Are we so trapped in a semantic argument that we've lost sight of the purpose of this debate -- providing legal protection for the couple -- along with the responsibilities that come with a commitment that is made between the couple?

If I were a business owner (a bakery, perhaps) and someone came in to buy a cake they saw in an ad or in a showcase, we are not likely to get into a discussion regarding my spiritual beliefs. If they came in wanting me to bake a special cake for a Ku Klux Clan rally, I would want the freedom to decline because their views conflict with my understanding of JESUS' teachings. It would be offensive to me to support or participate, using my skills, in their activities. Is that wrong? Whose freedom is in jeopardy when we are threatened with costly legal action to defend our most basic commodity -- freedom to be myself? Just because some "group" decides to demonstrate and gets the attention of the news media with television cameras, we become obsessed with protecting a group like the Gay, Lesbian community.

I applaud the television personality that made us aware of the pizza shop owner (I think in Indiana) who was threatened. Her efforts led to a fundraising campaign that successfully raised over a year's income for the business and the account was still growing. I will not get there to buy pizza, but I do appreciate their willingness to stand for individual spiritual freedom even at the risk of losing their business.

It concerns me that any issue can come up as prejudice against someone or some group. If small business owners organize and start demonstrating will they get the same media attention as the other groups? Do you think the Ku Klux Clan should be able to sue my theoretical bakery when I refuse to support their activities with my skills as a baker ? Would you want to help pay my legal expenses when I defend our freedom in court ?

Somewhere sanity needs to return to our nation and the demonstrators need to get back to work.

•••

Editor's note: Leo Lynch is an award-winning columnist. He is a native of Benton County has deep roots in northwest Arkansas. He is a retired industrial engineer and former Justice of the Peace. He can be contacted at [email protected].