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.
