My parents own a small business and are personally against Gay Marriage. I admit that hoping that my privacy will be respected enough that no one will try to find them and harass them because of this... They are generally good people who are sometimes misguided in their thoughts. However, they don't let that creep into their business and have the utmost respect for people in general. Yes, even Gay people. Just because they believe that Homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean that they are opposed to people who are gay.
I'd be devastated if their business suffered because of their personal viewpoints. The mob mentality leads to situations where we round up everyone who is Japanese, Jewish, Homophobic, etc. and get rid of them. Let's be rational here and let people live with their beliefs, and lets not persecute people for their beliefs because of a time/culture/religion they were born into or the sexual orientation they were born with.
EDIT: Just because you are opposed to someone getting married doesn't mean you hate that group. People who have that viewpoint frequently believe that homosexuality will degrade the morality of society. Yes, they are wrong and misguided, but they aren't ALL hateful.
In fact, I would venture to say that an extremely FEW are hateful. There has been too much caricaturing on both sides. I am fairly certain that 95%+ of people on both sides of the issue are actually very caring, intelligent people (and yes, even on the pro-Prop 8 side like myself) who do not treat each other differently.
You are right. I put the emphasis there not to condemn them, but it seems like a majority of comments equate pro-Prop 8 with hating homosexuals. I actually agree that few people out there are hateful.
It tends to be the 5% on either side that makes the rest of us look bad.
> I am fairly certain that 95%+ of people on both sides of the issue are actually very caring, intelligent people
I would be very surprised if on this, or any other, divisive political issue, 95% of the people on any side (much less both sides) were "very caring, intelligent people", or even "above average" in either (much less both) the "caring" or "intelligent" domains.
That's almost as ridiculous and cartoonish a characterization is saying that they are all hateful and mindless.
It should be patently obvious that 95% of people are not "above average", and that when considering two independent attributes, it is a statistical impossibility that 95% of people are above average in one of the two.
I had another comment today to attract a few surprising downvotes. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7535793 Perhaps everyone's still a bit grouchy over the Mozilla thing? :-(
This is pretty clearly a "right to swing your fist ends at my nose" situation. If your parents aren't attempting to limit homosexuals' ability to live as equals with non-homosexual humans then, yes, they shouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs. However, if they donate to political causes that are anti-gay-marriage, or march in support of those who do, or sign petitions asking for the right to marry to be repealed...
If you're uncomfortable with associating the word "hate" with "against gay marriage", consider what opponents of gay marriage are trying to stop:
* A person easily being able to be present at the deathbed of their lifetime partner.
Well, no. That's not what people who are against gay marriage are trying to stop.
Those are all different issues, and you'll find different percentages of people for and against each of them. Lowest against the deathbed issue, highest on the child custody issue, for example. Then the concept of redefining the term "marriage", which is yet another different issue.
Conflating all these issues is not helpful in the discussion. People's feelings on these topics are complex, and you really have to talk about it with that complexity to have any meaningful insight.
You may be right that supporters of Prop 8 wished to deny those benefits (hospital visit rights, joint custody, tax bracket, community property), but Prop 8 itself did none of the above. Gays (but not straight couples, at least until age 62) could enter into domestic partnerships that provide all the same benefits as far as the state is concerned. Regardless of Prop 8, gay couples wouldn’t get the federal joint filing due to DOMA at the time. Prop 8 was not about those other rights, it was about the words “marriage” and “spouse”.
Do they donate money help fund laws to remove people's rights? Thats big thing, its one thing to be against gay marriage its another thing to fund campaigns to ban it. Obama is against gay marriage, but he has never taken any action to prevent gays from getting married or recognizing gay marriages. Thats the key difference. If the former Mozilla CEO just tweeted he's against gay marriage, i am willing to bet he'd still have a job.
Double standards here. You wouldn't be against anyone who donated to the cause because you think it's 'right'.
Now substitute 'gay marriage' with 'legalizing drugs'. See where your argument is going?
"He's wrong because he doesn't agree with me and took action to oppose it". If people never took action to push their beliefs then we'll still have slavery in USA.
We're a democratic society, and people are free to voice their opinion or donate to campaigns that support their beliefs as long as it is legal.
The damage done by the Drug Wars is arguably worse than that done by bigotry against gays. It costs more. It imprisons vastly more people. It is supported by official government propaganda. Many more people die because of it.
If I had the choice of herding the narcs or the anti-gay bigots onto a leaky barge and towing them out to sea, the narcs would go first. They are materially more dangerous, and the anti-gay bigots are far more likely to see the light.
Legalizing drugs isn't about oppressing a minority. Outlawing Interracial marriage would be a better analogy. The same arguments are being used which cite religious beliefs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation ) .
"Legalizing drugs isn't about oppressing a minority."
Given the significantly enhanced incarceration rates of african americans for drug use, even though their actual drug use is not significantly greater than white americans, I've often thought that Drug Laws have precisely been about a coded way of continuing to oppress minorities, without having to be obvious about it.
He supported it in the 90s, then was "undecided" again for a while, then flat-out against it, then changed his mind again in early 2012 and is now in support of it.
Interestingly, as FiveThirtyEight showed at the time, he waited until there was more than 50% support among Democratic voters before finally coming out in support of it this most recent time. (That tipping point happened a couple of months before he announced the "evolution" of his believes.)
The mob mentality leads to situations where we round up everyone who is Japanese, Jewish, Homophobic, etc. and get rid of them.
One of these things is not like the other.
Also, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of people "rounding up" donors to Prop 8. Eich was appointed to lead an organization whose values he didn't share, and represent them to the public. He was unapologetic about this. This isn't a situation your parents or pretty much anyone else would realistically find themselves in.
No, that isn't going to happen, but the dehumanization of a person happens quickly. You can easily go from well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion to, ostracizing people. Sure the extreme example is rounding people up, but it's that slippery slope that we need to watch out for.
Our country is going in a GREAT direction and soon homophobia is going to be much like racism. It will be taboo and hopefully die out to small pockets of resistance. But during that transition we need to remember that the people on the other side of the fence are people too and we need to accept them as societal norms change. History is ripe with situations where people are turned into black sheep by society because they were on the wrong side of the fence and we (the majority) demonize them.
Today, if somebody does not support interracial marriage, they are considered as racists. Is that wrong? If somebody does not support gay marriage - do they hate gays? Why do they want to disallow marriage benefits to these people?
In other words, if somebody is advocating that certain benefits should not be given to certain group of people (and they are part of that group not by own choice), the first question should be: Who is going to get harmed if we give that benefit to that group of people? If there is no answer on that question... then...
Yes, "who is going to be harmed" should be the question, not anything about sexuality. Unfortunately most people, both pro-gay and anti-gay miss that point and continue to hold arbitrary prejudices against the sexualities and activities which don't fit what their peers tells them to believe. I can't enumerate them on HN without creating hostility but to get a feeling for the hypocrisy of strongly pro-gay advocates, see Paul Graham's "What You Can't Say" essay http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
A lot of people oppose gay marriage, because of the kids that the couples would undoubtedly have/adopt. We all agree that homosexuality is not a choice, right? Most people are heterosexual - I dug around for the exact percentage of gay people and most sources cite between 2% and 5% - and this means most kids born will be hetero. It's not an unpopular opinion to say that a heterosexual kid needs a role model(parent) from the same gender and with the same sexual orientation in order to develop a healthy and balanced personality.
I doubt that's actually a reason many people hold. It's more of an excuse. The basic reason is probably common to most anti-gays - simply that gay sex is disgusting and weird and they can't bare to imagine it. If it wasn't that, they'd be supporting gay marriage but trying to restrict effeminate males, "butch" women and single parents from raising children. The "it's disgusting and weird" reason also explains the extreme prejudice against minority sexualities even from members of the pro-gay community.
I was raised by a single mother, and had no problem finding male role models, I fail to see how this would be different to a child raised by two men or two women
It's also not an opinion borne out by facts. Many children grow up with single parents and somehow manage to live healthy, balanced lives. Many children of gay couples also are well-adjusted and do very well for themselves. While having same-gendered same-oriented parental role models generally doesn't hurt children, its also not a necessity for them to grow up to be good people.
"homosexuality will degrade the morality of society"
Maybe I'm really, really, thick, but how is this not hateful?
The obvious exercise would be to replace homosexuality with being black or Jewish. I'm not saying this to score cheap points, but to illustrate how I personally read this.
I'm very sorry, and I respect the fact that we're talking about people who are very dear to you, but cannot read those phrases as anything other than expressions of hatred.
Given a moral framework, the third statement is an empirical statement. Given a traditional Christian moral framework, as an example, the third statement is true. If you believe that a traditional Christian moral framework is necessary for Western civilization to continue, then that justifies the first two statements. For the United States, then, the major task is to argue that a traditional Christian moral framework isn't necessary for Western civilization to survive.
Thing is that we don't use a traditional christian framework. We throw out most of the old testament and much of the focus is on the new Gospel. Explicit line against gays lies in Leviticus, and like most of Leviticus should be ignored.
" The mob mentality leads to situations where we round up everyone who is Japanese, Jewish, Homophobic, etc. and get rid of them."
This is an utterly insane strawman you all are creating. We're now comparing holocaust victims, people in internment camps and people who have had a constitutional amendment passed to take away their rights to the plight of having people boycott your business for your intolerance...?
What's the next step? Compare people who had their rights taken away and then boycotted a person's products to Hitler just to complete the internet hyperbole?
It doesn't matter if people actively working to deny some groups their equal rights are hateful or not; they could be the most charming people in the world. No one is suggesting jailing the holders of said beliefs because of them. But sending a clear message that some views are downright wrong in our society and are opposed to its core democratic values isn't a "mob mentality", and such a clear message in favor of equality does not lead to unfair discrimination, and certainly not to rounding up people and getting rid of them. All it does is educate people that intolerant views are not tolerated in a free society.
Isn't the point of a democracy to allow the people to have a voice? It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought. The Brendan Eich controversy highlights the issue as of late. Do I share all of the values/beliefs that my CEO does? No. Should I boycott my CEO for having conflicting values/beliefs? Maybe. If I am totally against something, then I should stand up for my beliefs. I believe everything starts to collapse when I try to use my beliefs to rally against another individual.
I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would make the United States of America.
If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc?
I am not very political, and I have many left and right wing perspectives. I am just saddened to see our country starting to stumble on a slippery slope.
"It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought."
No. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. If you're pro-rape, you're a pariah, but it's not illegal just to have those beliefs. If you're pro-racism, you're going to have a hard time in most places. We don't have to respect those beliefs, and (if we feel strongly enough) we can choose not include those people in our lives (work for them, shop at their stores, etc)... But we do have to support their legal right to have/express those beliefs and (hopefully) treat them with respect rather than doubling down with hate.
Now take a belief like "we should increase the minimum wage". Are there many people that would grab their pitchfork and light their torches over that belief? Nope.
So the question is: How reprehensible is it to believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal? Is it a political issue, like minimum wage, or is it a human rights issue, like interracial marriage?
I don't think it works like that. Last I understood, right to food & shelter is primarily a negative right, meaning nobody can deprive you of those things. Similar to right to movement- nobody is obligated to buy you a bus ticket, but outside of special circumstances nobody is allowed to stop you from buying that bus ticket.
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right to housing as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. It states that:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
[/snip]
Doesn't sound like the right to an adequate standard of living (which would include food and shelter) is a negative right to me.
Well, that's how it is according to the UN. I'm attempting to find something more specifically about the USA- the UN's opinions are often pie-in-the-sky...
Obviously reality is more nuanced; notice the unrest of SF residents recently. Many can't afford their SF flats anymore; is that a violation of human rights? Do we need to subsidize their housing?
Clearly there is a positive aspect- Section 8 housing, anyone?- but it seems like that plays a small part in the overall "right".
I support marriage equality and in general lean towards progressive/liberal polices. However I too am disturbed by the how aggressively progressive groups are getting where they demand that anyone who disagrees has to have their carrier destroyed and be totally ostracized from socity. Why was it necessary to demand that he loses his job? Why not just demend that Mozilla openly state their support for same sex marragie/benifts. Would all the people demanding that he step down also support a company who decided they would have a policy of not employing anyone who openly professed a belief in Islam, Catholicism or any number of world religions due to their opposition to same sex marriage? Demonizing the the people who disagree with us is not going to help win them over.
> If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc?
rolleyes
For starters, how about the fact that no authoritarian government forced anyone to do anything in this situation?
Mozilla got bad press because their CEO did something unpopular, and refused to apologize. As a quasi-nonprofit that relies somewhat on donations, Mozilla is more vulnerable to bad PR.
I just wish more CEOs could be held accountable for bad behavior. Bob Parsons (of GoDaddy) killing endangered elephants comes to mind...
Yes, the people have a voice. All the people. I believe strongly in free speech and if anything, I think this whole episode is an example of it working across the board.
Brendan Eich is free to support what I see as stupidly offensive positions, other people are free to speak out against what he said and/or boycott. The company he was made CEO of is free to stand by their man or cave and force him to resign.
Three different entities/groups utilized their freedom to speak and/or choose, so what's the problem?
> Three different entities/groups utilized their freedom to speak and/or choose, so what's the problem?
The hypocrisy.
Where are OKCupid's protests against Intel? 538 didn't release names, but surely they can't be hard to find, and if there is reason to burn one heretic then by induction there's reason to burn all the rest. So what is OKCupid waiting for?
Your point seems to be that the white, rich male who donated money to a campaign to take away civil rights is the REAL victim here. Not sure I can agree with that.
I said you're unfairly judging the situation, by focusing on those facts about the person. Why else would you say "white, rich male" and "REAL victim" in that tone? If I've misunderstood, feel free to clarify why you felt that describing a "white, rich male" was necessary. I read it as a suggestion that we should let those factors influence how we judge the justness or unjustness of this situation. To do so is not in keeping with equality.
Full disclosure: if you look at my other recent comments, I've obviously been quite sympathetic to the man (though cooling off as I accept the reality of PR politics.) I'm also a "privileged", straight, white male. I don't think this affects my post here. The whole idea of, "If a privileged majority may have been slighted, nobody need apologize, we'll just erase a bit of the debt they owe the world and put it out of our mind for today" is repulsive to me. I feel like this is underlying your original comment (feel free to untwist your words if that's what I've unwittingly done.) I'm not saying he was victimized, but it's offensive that you went out of your way to reject that idea, in large part because of the status of the person. People who indulge this kind of mentality are just about as bad as the original oppressors. Maybe this is all invalid to you since I'm a "white male", but I also hope I would have the integrity to stand up for this, even if I were not so privileged.
" I'm also a "privileged", straight, white male. I don't think this affects my post here. The whole idea of, "If a privileged majority may have been slighted, nobody need apologize, we'll just erase a bit of the debt they owe the world and put it out of our mind for today" is repulsive to me. "
Its fine to be privileged in a vacuum, and people shouldn't treat you any differently. But to be a person in a position of privilege AND paying to take away the civil rights of a less privileged group AND THEN claiming to be the victim when you lose your job and people gasp judge you based on your actions? VICTIM CARD BABY!
It's pretty clear you're quick to do the same. Stuff like "Maybe this is all invalid to you since I'm a "white male"" is nothing if not you playing the victim card based on being in the most privileged class on the planet...
My point was never that rich white males are awful, just that the whole "holy shit someone pointed out that me abusing my position of power is offensive, time to turn the tables and make me, the rich white male, the real abused one in this saga where an entire class of people had an amendment passed to take away their civil rights. Those people whos rights I took away? They're the real bad people here..."
Alright, that bit was a little too "victim card." There's nothing more I can productively say about that.
I see what you're saying about the victim mentality, but you're being too broad. (Not that Brendan has even said anything about feeling victimized AFAIK, but people here are on his behalf.) My point is that if we're ever going to have more equality, we have to stop "keeping score" like this. You could at least make it about how a straight person (Brendan) is playing the victim after victimizing non-straights. Make it about the hypocrisy of exercising "free speech" and then being upset when others exercise theirs at you (again I don't think Brendan feels this way), or legislating rights away from others, but please stop dragging in "rich white male." When talking about these issues, the classes are relevant, but none of those are a factor to the class you are accusing him of oppressing. Unless you actually think it would be different if he only discriminated against gay, rich, white males? Or, that not a single middle-class, female latina also supported Prop 8? I feel you just bring them up to remind everyone what the score is and how it should color what we think of Brendan's situation. That's not equality.
" none of those are a factor to the class you are accusing him of oppressing. Unless you actually think it would be different if he only discriminated against gay, rich, white males?"
You seem completely allergic to even attempting to get it. How about instead of twisting my words to suit your argument you simply read what I said and realize that my point is only "be aware of your position of privilege and, at the very least, try not to take away the civil rights of less privileged groups while doing so." If this is offensive to you than I refuse to acknowledge that you are a rational person.
Good, you dropped "rich, white male" which was my point. Your point still makes sense from both our perspectives, as "straight person" could be called a more privileged position than "gay person."
I guess I should know better than to imagine that I could point out that someone in a position of privilege probably shouldn't play the victim to a bunch of people in positions of privilege...
We had the Terrorism scare. We had the WMD scare. We had the communist scare. We had the gay culture scare. Now we have the anti-gay, anti-feminist, & "rape culture" scare.
I really appreciate all of the replies. My main concern lies not at all in the gay marriage debate. It lies in the increased bullying for views that aren't aligned with what individuals believe is right. For example : http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5506&app=cro
BTW I have no affiliation to campus reform nor do I know what it is.
And for the guy calling the campaign a "hate group".. You should look up SPLC's hate group map, you would love it. And just so you know, that map has allowed "activists" to target institutions for shootings, just look up the Family Research Council.
Once again, I do not affiliate with any of these organizations nor would I because I believe in true love. I believe every human has the right to be loved and listened to in our democracy.
It is when activism becomes violent justice that upsets me.
Giving money to a hate group is not a "freedom of speech" OR a "freedom of thought" issue. At that point you've crossed the line from thought to action.
This isn't really hard to understand. And I for one am sick and tired of people invoking the beaten-to-death "but freedom of speeech!" argument when called on bad behavior. Freedom is a two way street.
Not to mention the fact it's a double standard. People saying that Eich did a bad thing is wrong and somehow infringing on freedom, but Eich giving money to a group who wants to legislate fundamentalist religious ideals is not infringing? What the fuck?!
Wow. Downvoted to -4 for calling donating to hate groups wrong. This is a new low for HN.
How about interracial marriage instead?
Double standards are appaling in this case.
I've just read Marco's http://www.marco.org/2014/04/04/political-views and I think he hits the nail on the head.
I don't find the comparison all that revealing. Clearly, there is no substantive difference between races. However, there are a few obvious substantive differences between genders, and these differences might lead one to a different belief regarding marriage. A belief in outlawing interracial marriage necessarily comes from hateful beliefs. A belief regarding gay marriage doesn't necessarily come from hate/homophobia.
I'm not about to go off into the weeds with you on a completely separate topic that I swear every single anti-equality person jumps to as a matter of course. Views on equal marriage rights are completely irrelevant to how many people a person should be able to marry - the concerns raised are completely different both on a sociological and a legal level.
So we should have been more tolerant to those who supported segregation and let them just keep on keeping on?
I think recent history is pretty clear, making certain social and political views have consequences has largely been for the greater good. There are no doubt many anecdotes of the opposite. My little "sacrifice" for having been "Un-American" or a "Sadam Lover" a decade ago is nothing compared to what those of another color or sexual preference have gone through in my lifetime.
At some point, people have to pick sides and accept the consequences.
Isn't the point of a democracy to allow the people to have a voice? It is starting to seem like many progressive groups are trying to vilify an individual's freedom of speech/thought.
Of course, but the norms in society do shift, things that were once seen as deviant standards from the norm, may become accepted for a wide range of reasoning, society and what it expects of its members continually evolves, and has for millennia. I disagree that this is trying to vilify any thought, society has largely shifted, especially in coastal regions on this topic. It is accepted among many in metropolitan, young, urban areas that gay marriage and the rights of gays to couple and be recognized is a civil rights issue. Calling out someone who opposes that, are for many people the same as calling out someone who would presume that interracial marriage is wrong, or that segregation should still exist.
I believe everything starts to collapse when I try to use my beliefs to rally against another individual.
Do you really believe that? The nature of the marketplace of ideas, and how society shifts, is essentially exactly this. Beliefs are pursued through elections, advocacy, legal systems, exposure to people. 50 years ago it was unthinkable that gay’s would be accepted and have a protected right in some states to marry, 100 years ago it was unthinkable that blacks and whites would attend the same school together and just about 150 years ago, a war was fought to end slavery. These all come about because beliefs are rallied against other individuals in position of influence and power and a side wins.
I have the belief that our founding fathers knew America would be a melting pot of religions, cultures, and beliefs and that is why they established state's rights to accommodate the beautiful array of citizens of which would make the United States of America.
I’ve studied this period in American history a great deal, and I don’t think I’m making a leap to suggest that I do not believe this to be the case at all. The founding fathers in reviewing many of their writings, federalist papers and more, do not seem to anticipate anything but a society rooted in the landed aristocracy they knew and were a part of. The application of the rights in the Bill of Rights was slowly but surely expanded to all people and then slowly but surely enshrined to the states. Consider the text of the 14th amendment, to come after the Civil War and finally settle the issue of who a citizen is, the 15th protecting the right to vote for blacks, the 19th to only come after World War I giving women the right to vote, and the 26th passed in 1971 allowing 18 year olds to vote.
If we’re going to credit the founding fathers with anything its a system that places branches of government at odds with each-other, and that does tend to evolve with society, and not be locked into a set of rules understood as necessary in 1789, although there are plenty who would disagree as well.
If we continue to push one set of beliefs how different are we than North Korea, Iran, etc? Because we aren’t jailing people, we aren’t executing people, we aren’t using the power of law to say you may not speak about an issue. But society and people can decide not to support a position any longer.
This slippery slope has existed always and predates America, imo.
Edit: sorry for any grammatical, formatting errors wrote this from mobile and quickly.
Once upon a time, OKCupid had amazing blog posts with fascinating analyses of their data.
The blog posts stopped. Match.com acquired them. And their data-centric roots seemed to have eroded badly.
The message they put up -- "If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly eight percent of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal." [^1] -- was pretty sloppy hyperbole. As if 100% of the 8% were going to get married. As if OKCupid were marriage-oriented like Eharmony.
Although a mob has many members, OKCupid is the company that chose to crank this into a higher gear, and volunteer to be Conseja de la Suprema y General Inquisición. [^2]
Marriage equality is right. Purges are wrong. Shamers should be ashamed.
Anyone else want to find out if OKCupid uses any Intel products, and if so, start harassing them over it? Since the data shows Intel employees had pretty strong support for Prop 8.
I feel kind of guilty about this, as it feels like fighting fire with fire, but I would hope it would illustrate that this sort of witch hunting and "six degrees of separation" will lead to absolutely stupid results if applied to the utmost degree.
P.S. Not to mention they surely use Javascript, another technology tainted by Mr. Eich himself. They harass users of "his" browser, but don't seem to see an issue with their own use of another of his projects.
I'm conflicted. "Two wrongs don't make a right". So yes maybe the Match CEO donated to similar causes in Utah, but do we really want to go down that road? I don't.
What I would like to see happen -- not vindictively, but out of a sense of basic fairness and justice -- is a resignation at OKCupid. Also resignations from Mozilla board members, such as the chair, and whoever was on the executive search committee. The resignations would be not due to political beliefs, but for very poor judgement and lack for competence.
The question is, exactly which behaviours would you suggest we not engage in? Should we not use our right of freedom of speech to criticise others? Should we not use our right of freedom of association to choose not to associate with people and organisations which do not support our moral beliefs, and what we see to be our human rights?
The only thing I can think of is that Mozilla are to blame for firing him, except that Mozilla has a (limited) freedom to choose their employees. As far as I can tell, even in the UK, where we have rather far-reaching employment discrimination law, companies have the right to fire people for political actions, although not for pure philosophical beliefs[0] or being a member of a political party. I could be wrong there, however.
So the question is, exactly who acted in the wrong and exactly how, in a way which does not lead to a slippery slope?
This is an important point that I've been bringing up whenever someone tries to discuss this: what reason is there to prevent someone else from getting gay married?
The only reason that I've seen is 'my beliefs say it's not okay, so you're not allowed to do it even if you don't share them'. Which comes across as spite, more than anything. 'I'm going to prevent you from getting married even though it costs me nothing to allow it', and in fact it cost Eich a thousand dollars to try to prevent it.
I can't imagine spending a thousand dollars to prevent someone from doing something they wanted to do if it wasn't going to affect me in any tangible way. That's why Eich seemed like an untrustworthy choice for CEO: this doesn't seem like a rational decision for a person to make.
I've heard people say something like "it's far too soon to tell what impact if any this rather dramatic change to the traditional definition of marriage will have on society, so perhaps we should take things slow and not rush to implement it everywhere simultaneously."
This seems like a reasonable enough position to me -- although I don't share it because I think the injustice to the individuals affected outweighs any potential drawbacks I can come up with, sometimes the law of unexpected consequences surprises us in interesting ways.
I've also heard people say "judge-made law causes resentment and entrenchment in a minority of the populace and leads to long-term conflicts (see, for instance, Roe vs. Wade). Therefore, while it'd be nice to have gay marriage everywhere simultaneously, we should wait to introduce it in a jurisdiction until we have an electoral majority there."
Again, this seems like a reasonable enough position to me, although not one I personally share.
Brendan Eich would be just fine as CEO in a more civil society where people are capable of separating personal opinions and professional actions. My personal dislike of his 'resignation' comes from a desire to have that (sadly imaginary) society instead of the one we've got. If I can work peaceably with a bunch of left-wing people, y'all should be able to work just fine with Brendan.
In a democracy, you work to make your opinion heard and effective. If you have the opinion, whether based on religious or other grounds, that homosexuality may damage the overall morality of a society, then you would work to protect that society from what you would view as a potential issue. You would also support laws that would be a means to that end--the goal not being to put somebody else down but to uphold it. Therefore a person that holds such beliefs would support enacting a law that prevents something, even if it didn't constrain them in any way.
b) Insistence on having marriage be concretely defined as "one man and one woman" and potentially introduce similar but differently named unions for non-traditional couples. This actually has some basis, as marriage used to be widely defined as such (even in dictionaries) until the debate of gay marriage led to a shift in terminology.
Those are two that I can name of. Note that I personally belong to argument A. Not that it's a vehement opposition, just a personal view on the futility of it.
I can tell you the position of some of the churches that funded Prop 8[1]. It has very little to do with the rights of others. It is basically the fear of the chain that goes from: suing a wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs[2]. The attack on Catholic Family Services and other churches providing adoption services. Next, Catholic Nuns and other church organizations being forced to buy healthcare that provides for abortions. With the thought it will lead to a church being sued to allow a marriage that does not meet their doctrine.
The churches have learned a great deal from the ACLU given its constant suing of any religious display. They know you fight every inch of the way and don't compromise, since your opponents won't. They are fearful of the state forcing doctrine on them. The 1st amendment is very fragile given what has happened to the 4th, 5th
1) once again, I don't believe in state sponsored marriage of any type beyond basic contractual law between 2+ people meeting certain biological conditions (no possible inbreeding). I also have some problems about lack of consideration for the situation of conjoined twins and current rules given our ability to allow them a healthy life will exceed our ability to separate them in vitro.
2) an artist is a different discussion then a restaurant, motel, hospital, etc.
The thing about the wedding photographer and cake designer who did not want to be involved in a wedding that violated their religious beliefs, is that the United States has already been there on a wide scale. Go back fifty or sixty years, and you'll find vast numbers of businesses that refused to serve non-whites, often for sincerely held religious reasons.
I have no dispute on restaurant, motel, hospital, and other public establishments, but wedding photographer and cake designer are artists. What about goldsmiths, painters of portraits, and software developers? Can you be compelled to work? What about priests then? This is the slope that fuels the money.
Once again, I know the history of restaurants and public establishments you down voters[1]. You are wrong about a restaurant since they can be compelled (as it should be since they are a public establishment and licensing takes care of that). We already have a case of forced labor in a photographer which is why the churches are worried about being compelled to perform by the state.
1) don't ever think that it didn't happen to others
They can be offered the choice, "Do it, or suffer the legal ramifications.", but if they choose "suffer the legal ramifications" standard legal ramifications are the extent of what happens. You can't actually legally force them to do the work, they can choose to not do the work and accept the consequences instead.
"Accepting the consequences" is a nice way to say the law makes it illegal and you will be punished. So, yes, you can be compelled to do work. In the case of a hospital or restaurant that is a public place and licensed as such, this is a very good thing. Forcing artists (which the ruling acknowledges get no exceptions) is another and leads to the reason why churches and others will spend the money campaigning (see my original post).
I think it is important to understand the law before posting foolishness and twisting the meaning of words.
And for any proposed law change, there's always some annoying folks who agree with the overall spirit of the change, but oppose because they disagree with some specific details. Like, maybe the new law doesn't go far enough, or doesn't have the right wording. Or maybe they just object to the process by which it was created or campaigned for.
Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that
exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential
institution of society"
Totally baseless assertion. So was the right to vote only belonging to white male landowners at the end of the 18th century.
[T]hat leaving the constitution unchanged would "result
in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage
is okay"
In my 13 years of public schooling I don't remember any of my teachers ever discussing marriage.
[And] that gays "do not have the right to redefine
marriage for everyone else."
If you don't like gay marriage, you don't have to get gay married. You're more than welcome to get married to a member of the opposite sex, like I—ostensibly—will do at some point.
heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society", that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay", and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else."
Apparently the prop 8 argument is basically a massive appeal to tradition fallacy?
> Proponents of the constitutional amendment argued that exclusively heterosexual marriage was "an essential institution of society."
This is not an argument, it's a statement of opinion. I'd be interested in seeing what facts back it.
> that leaving the constitution unchanged would "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay"
This is making the presumption that gay marriage is not okay, which again, is an opinion without any backing facts.
> and that gays "do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else."
This is a non-sequitur - gays are not trying to redefine marriage for everyone else. Nothing pertaining to hetero marriage would be changed in the slightest by allowing gays to participate in the institution.
There isn't a rational position on opposing marriage between siblings, yet it's still illegal in the US. Of course there are reasons about damage to children, bullying of children, etc but fundamentally people are just repulsed by the idea so they don't want anyone to do it and it's still illegal. Gay marriage is only one of various types of marriage that are unfairly discriminated against. Fortunately gay marriage might now allow a father and son to marry each other, which may help open the minds of the mob.
Anyone with half a brain knew that Obama did not really oppose gay marriage. When he switched views no one was really surprised... At least of those with half a brain.
It's very easy to think that the other side of an issue does not hold a rational position. We use the same brain to hold hold our own opinion, and to evaluate the opinions of others. In situations outside the scientific method there is little way to objectively know which is the "right" or "rational" position.
I was on the other side of this debate (ie against prop 8, pro gay marriage), and we donated and engaged in some advocacy in support of that view. I strongly believe in the idea of marriage as a civil rights issue which should be available to any pair of consenting adults (and perhaps configurations other than pairs, if I'm going to be intellectually consistent about it).
On the other hand, I also strongly believe in people's right to hold other points of view. I would certainly want no truck, as an individual or as a customer of a business, with someone who made a habit of expressing the differing opinion in hateful terms or by actions designed to injure the subjects of that opinion (eg firing gay employees or refusing to grant benefits to same-sex spouses or domestic partners), but on the other hand I don't really have a problem with someone who treats everyone consistently and with respect, although that person might have quite different beliefs from me about how things should be.
The thing is, there might be a wide range of things motivating that belief, from some deep pragmatic, religious, or moral conviction to simple antipathy. Unless the person acts or speaks to signal what those motivations are, I don't see any point in trying to make judgments about them or by extension of the person, for the same reason I wouldn't want people making extrapolations about my character from a single data point. This hasn't stopped a lot of other people from demonizing Eich on the basis of his donation, without giving any apparent weight to his behavior at Mozilla or the experience of LGBT people who work with him there (several of whom have blogged in support of his appointment notwithstanding their disagreement with his support of prop 8). Not being gay it's easy for me not to take the issue personally, but I'm inclined to give a lot of weight to people who are gay and deal with him on a regular basis.
The whole business has an unsavory air of internet bullying to it, to be frank. I'm not thinking of people like Catlin Hampton who went public about their discomfort with Eich's appointment so much as the large number of tweets, comments and so on that adopted a confrontational stance and made it into a zero-sum binary issue, eg people calling him 'Eich(mann)' and equating him with the late and largely unlamented Fred Phelps. Characterizations of this sort don't seem any better to me than characterizations of gay people as perverts or suchlike. Bandwagon behavior seems to bring out the worst in people and reminds me of why I generally dislike being in groups.
Whenever people have strong views like this, I'm skeptical how hostile they'll be to innocent people who don't fit their sharply defined worldview. In the UK a 16 year old "adult" can marry a 40 year old. If you support that right are you are active in opposing the 18-years age of consent laws in some US states? If you don't support it, do you see the UK laws as enabling child abuse?
My point is that when you put arbitrary conditions on what you're going to accept, you can end up including and excluding some people unfairly. How about just "as long as nobody is harmed"?
I completely support the right of people to gather statistics like this and make informed decisions about their consumer habits. I also support the right of Mozilla to make employment decisions based upon this.
Next up. Anyone who has ever supported abortion rights suddenly can't buy a house or gain employment anywhere in the state of Texas.
Personally I don't believe in marriage at all, at least from a government perspective.
Civil unions for all I say... let customary "marriage" take place in your church or synagogue or wooded grove or whatever and have no bearing on anyone else.
By now it seems pretty obvious that committed people should be entitled to the same legal protections regardless of sexual orientation...
That being said... not believing gay marriage is appropriate is NOT the same as believing similarly about inter-racial marriage. Some people (and I am not among these) feel marriage is a venue for biological reproduction and raising of children. And no matter how many rights gay people have, until our technology advances a bit further this is not something they are able to do. An inter-racial couple on the other hand can.
So please... stop with the "This is just like banning inter-racial marriage!" nonsense. In many peoples minds (again, not mine) it isn't.
And yes Eich was done badly. And OKCupid are bad actors in my opinion and should be called out on their nonsense. Particularly in view of threatening an open source browser.
If marriage is a venue for biological reproduction, then people shouldn't get the tax breaks and other legal benefits (hospital visitation, etc) until they've done so. Maybe the marriage certificate should be provisional until the first birth? Also, adoption certainly shouldn't count, since that's something same-sex couples can also do.
Stable high-income gay couples can't give adopted children a far better life opportunity (and hence increased tax income and lower social welfare costs for society at large), than if those children bounced around in foster homes until aging out?
Clearly they have a pervasive anti-gay culture growing over there. It's not even just one guy at the top, it's throughout! I'm sure everyone who called for boycotting Mozilla will boycott Intel, too, right? I'm sure OKCupid long ago purged themselves of any vile Intel products?
I wonder what the age breakup of their SV workforce is. Intel didn't get big on software, so presumably their workers are a generation apart from those of Google.
Google is still only 16 years old; Intel is 46. Yes, you can hire people mid-career, but only one of these two companies has really had enough time to grow a full crop of wizened engineers.
As we all know, older folks tend to vote more conservative.
I wonder how many weren't in SV, though looking at their list of offices in CA, most of them seem to be in liberal parts of the state. Maybe the whole Irvine office was the 60%. ;-)
Great analysis here. Really shows our double standard and mob mentality.
I'm not against people boycotting Mozilla (because that's their choice) but the whole things is just a big hotheaded mobfest (like all the other mobfest in the past).
What this shows is a great disparity between companies, i.e. corporate culture apparently attracts and/or fosters bigotry. (Intel, wtf?)
Which only supports the notion that Mozilla, given it's clear stance on equality and inclusiveness, should not be lead by a bigot like Eich. It was a completely inappropriate choice to begin with.
On a side note, I am disgusted by the way this is being artificially politicized by using terms like "progressive" and "liberal". Supporting equal civil rights for all is not a political view, not does being conservative mean being anti-gay.
This is not a political issue. You wouldn't call someone who is against institutionalized racism a "liberal" or "progressive".
The attempts to frame bigotry as politics is probably the most sickening part of this whole debacle.
I'd be devastated if their business suffered because of their personal viewpoints. The mob mentality leads to situations where we round up everyone who is Japanese, Jewish, Homophobic, etc. and get rid of them. Let's be rational here and let people live with their beliefs, and lets not persecute people for their beliefs because of a time/culture/religion they were born into or the sexual orientation they were born with.
EDIT: Just because you are opposed to someone getting married doesn't mean you hate that group. People who have that viewpoint frequently believe that homosexuality will degrade the morality of society. Yes, they are wrong and misguided, but they aren't ALL hateful.