1. Never seemed particularly long-winded to me; thoughtful comments are welcome here.

2. Yeah, that does need more clarification. What I meant was this: one of the most common tactics of people in the US trying to ban same-sex marriage is to present it as if they're not taking rights away from homosexuals, they're defending themselves and their beliefs. That's why they called the law the "Defense of Marriage Act" and use names like "National Organization of Marriage" while they destroy or outlaw marriages. One of the arguments you'll hear a lot is: if a state, or the federal government, doesn't ban same-sex marriages, then all churches will be forced to perform those marriages. If a church refuses to perform a same-sex marriage on the basis of its religious beliefs, the argument says that that church could be sued. Eventually they'd be forced by the government to change their beliefs to promote same-sex marriage.

That argument is, of course, nonsense. A marriage ceremony is not a public service but a religious one; the establishment clause and the principle of freedom of religion guarantee that the government won't interfere with a church's rituals or beliefs unless they can be proved harmful (as with underage marriage or withholding medical services). Any lawsuit brought against a Christian church for not performing a same-sex marriage ceremony would be rejected almost immediately, just as if, say, a Muslim couple tried to sue a Christian church for not performing their ceremony.

But that whole argument is designed to manipulate people's fears — could the government force us to celebrate something we don't believe in?! — and at the same time, make the bans going on all across the country sound like a defense instead of an attack on same-sex couples. Because you're supposed to feel sympathy for people who are on the defense. Like, for example, people who grew up their whole lives wanting to be married and start a family some day, and are now being told they can't because they're not worthy of it.

So the problem I have with the blogs I linked to is that they're feeding into exactly that anti-same-sex marriage rhetoric. Of course, a consumer boycott isn't the same thing as government intervention, but the claims in these blogs are dangerously close to the kinds of ideas people are being taught to fear. That a private organization could be punished not for infringing on someone else, but simply for having beliefs that are different from your own. So what if a private charity for marriage counseling doesn't support same-sex marriages? Big deal. eHarmony.com doesn't allow people to look for homosexual relationships; do we call for a boycott of that, too?

3. Yes, and everybody should be free to hold a personal boycott over anything they feel strongly about. Or even for no reason at all. I wouldn't want to be telling any group that they can't boycott a company, and I do resent their implying some sort of moral or ethical failure on my part for not boycotting.

For me, the question is how you define "support." If a business is directly funding an organization, it's pretty straightforward. Probably the same if the business advertised or put out a message saying "Down with Israel." But what if it's something the founder of the company believes, and it has nothing to do with the company's business? What if the company's execs use their private money to fund such an organization? What if it's something you suspect the execs believe, but have never said publicly?

4. It may only work for native English speakers. It's a play on "chicken filet."