Slashdot Mirror
Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?
theodp (442580) writes "Over the years, Mozilla's reliance on Google has continued to grow. Indeed, in its report on Brendan Eich's promotion to CEO of Mozilla, the WSJ noted that "Google accounted for nearly 90% of Mozilla's $311 million in revenue." So, with its Sugar Daddy having also gone on record as being virulently opposed to Proposition 8, to think that that Google's support didn't enter into discussions of whether Prop 8 backer Eich should stay or go seems, well, pretty much unthinkable. "It is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8," explained Google co-founder Sergey Brin in 2008. "We should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love." Interestingly, breaking the news of Eich's resignation was journalist Kara Swisher, whose right to marry a top Google exec in 2008 was nearly eliminated by Prop 8. "In an interview this morning," wrote Swisher, "Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said that Eich's ability to lead the company that makes the Firefox Web browser had been badly damaged by the continued scrutiny over the hot-button issue, which had actually been known since 2012 inside the Mozilla community." Swisher, whose article was cited by the NY Times in The Campaign Against Mozilla's Brendan Eich, added that "it was not hard to get the sense that Eich really wanted to stick strongly by his views about gay marriage, which run counter to much of the tech industry and, increasingly, the general population in the U.S. For example, he repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he would donate to a similar initiative today." So, was keeping Eich aboard viewed by Mozilla — perhaps even by Eich himself — as a possible threat to the reported $1 billion minimum revenue guarantee the organization enjoys for delivering search queries for Google?"
to have a miserable life, i.e. to be married.
They're opposed to Prop 8 yet in 2008:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...
Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was. Doesn't seem to have bothered too many people.
Do you have ESP?
If it was known in the Mozilla "community" why was he promoted to the position?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Just how "compromised" is Mozilla and the Firefox browser?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I understand the Church seems to think it has a monopoly on marriage as they are they most common institution to perform the ceremony. I also understand that many politicians will read the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. However it is not the government's role to decide who can and can't be together.
So why not abolish marriages from governments?
Have the government only recognise civil unions. Treat all civil unions equally. Introduce a reciprocal relationship with the Church's marriage so that any marriage performed by the church ends in a government recognised civil union. Finally provide other non religious methods of registering civil unions.
Everyone's happy. Except for those in government who think the Church's view that two dudes shouldn't touch each either. But to them I say one of the tenants of modern democracy is the separation of Church and state and go find another job where your bias and lack of impartiality doesn't affect the people who you are supposed to represent.
I knew they once were absolutely reliant on Google, and it is news to me how much they still are, but I see nothing in theodp's post itself to suggest there is anything other than speculation that I won't find substantiated in the links that Google would pull the plug. I have to say I dislike stories across the net that are just link farms. If there is an important link, emphasize it.
Basically, you're a dumbass.
You're defending the actual supremacist, who donated money to take away people's rights, and pretending those who do stand for equal rights and no longer want to tolerate the actual nazi's are the oppressors.
Think it over.
I hate social bullshit, buckets of unsubstantiated rumors, speculation, and accusation. Timothy's specialty, I guess.
Sad thing, though, is that at least half the "stories" here are posted just to elicit whining comments like this one - a click is a click, eh.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Mozilla do Google the favour, not the other way around.
If such ideology as yours was what this world really wanted, we would still be trading with an Apatheid government in South Africa. As you note, history is full of examples where economic pressures have been used to create social change, but unlike you I see that as a normal expression of the hallowed "free" market. I don't see anyone going to the guillotine, do you? Or are your just being hyperbolic in order to be completely out of our solar system?
They could make a new movie with Sean Connery, called The Hunt for the New World October.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The link to the text "virulently opposed to Proposition 8" has nothing do with backing the claim that behaved "virulently". Weasel words: score -1 for the summary.
Better known as 318230.
Sealed lips and a medium-sized monetary contribution is "virulent"? Please.
... considering marriage a "fundamental right" would seem a slippery slope. Does an atheist have a fundamental right to be ordained a priest?
To be clear, I think Eich was scapegoated, but am of the opinion it is unfair to deny marriage to gays. I am only concerned here with what seems to me to be excessively broad definitions and the fallout that may result.
Have you heard of 'perspective'? It's a fascinating notion, really.
In addition to making certain flavors of artistic realism possible, it suggests that 'a guy facing pressure to resign from his cushy leadership gig' and 'being sent to the guillotine by fanatical Jacobins' may actually be meaningfully different things. Cutting edge theory stuff, here.
Sorting proponents into governments that test them is the penetration of the Enlightenment into the social sciences. This allows the social sciences to progress beyond "correlation doesn't imply causation" to perform ethical experiments on human subjects that, because there are experimental control groups, permits much stronger inference of causal laws in human ecologies (human societies) than do mere ecological correlations.
So what's not to like about locales, like the Mozilla Foundation or Google or even Silicon Valley, excluding from their midst those who are incompatible with the social experiment that most people want to perform on themselves? After all, it is only by consent of the governed that a jurisdiction can be deemed legitimate.
Here's the problem:
In the modern zeitgeist it is considered the moral equivalent of Satanism to practice what is called "the politics of exclusion". Why? Because it "discriminates".
These fuzzy tropes forget one thing, however -- and it is something that anyone who is involved in technology should understand in their gut:
It is only by "excluding" various hypotheses that we can "discriminate" between truth and falsehood in the real world.
But no one wants to admit that their religion might be false -- including those whose religion is the de facto state religion that enforces "inclusion" and prohibits "discrimination".
Seastead this.
i'm sorry but i genuinely fail to see the importance of any of this "personal view" stuff. a technically-competent person who has been with it almost since the beginning: they were the CEO of Mozilla for about a week. someone as technically competent as brendan should have absolutely no difficulty firewalling personal from professional: why do we have to have idiots believe otherwise? could someone therefore please explain to me in simple language what's really going on?
If I still lived in California I would also have been "virulently opposed" to prop 8, but I hate the idea of judging someone's employability based on how they vote. To suggest that Google would treat Mozilla differently simply based on a single-issue stance of its new CEO is really selling them short. They invest in Mozilla for strategic reasons. (Mozilla isn't some sort of lazy couch-crasher that Google supports because of Mozilla's charming personality.)
And for that matter, I don't think we should judge products based on the ideology of the people who created them. To save us some time, I'll get straight to a Hitler example, noting that Hitler personally played an important role in the design of the VW Beetle. But hippies can still drive Beetles without thereby supporting Hitler.
Haven't heard of Godwin's Law have you?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
This is an honest question, no sarcasm or trolling here.
On a different case from this one... What if a CEO is against abortion or/and has an open public position against it? Should he be considered a bad person? Should he be forced to step down?
The hypocrisy of two of OkCupid’s co-founders, Sam Yagan and Christian Rudder. We searched the federal campaign-contribution database and found that Yagan gave to two candidates who opposed same-sex marriage: $500 to then-Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, a Republican, in 2004; and $500 to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign who also opposed gay marriage at the time. According to Wikipedia, 7,001,084 people voted for Prop 8. Why do any of those people still have jobs? Shouldn’t they all be forced to resign? And why should they have the privilege of living in California at all? I say round them up and move them someplace where they won’t do any harm.” One reason why rich white guys like Eich are being targeted so viciously is that the many black churches who supported Proposition 8 — and, indeed, put it over the top — are out-of-bounds for criticism. Uh oh: 60% of Intel employees who donated in Prop 8 debate supported banning gay marriage. “Exit question: When do we get a list of Silicon Valley donors to Obama’s campaign circa 2008, when he was still formally against traditional marriage? True, he didn’t support Prop 8 or other attempts to legally ban SSM (a strong signal at the time that his stated view was a lie), but the whole point of the equal protection argument against traditional marriage laws is that you can’t reserve ‘marriage’ for straights without implicitly slapping a second-class-citizen stigma on gays. Obama was willing to do that, at least rhetorically. Let’s have the names.” Purge them all!!!!!!
I could see others stepping up to pay for that lucrative space. Perhaps Microsoft (although similar issues as Google/Chrome), or maybe someone else like Amazon or Yahoo.
Agreed. So make government civil unions about that, and "marriage" a definition churches or other organizations can apply to whatever they want. I see no good reason why any sort of family unit - such as someone caring for a disabled relative - shouldn't qualify for the property rights we currently grant to marriage.
Interesting comment, wish I had mod points today. You demonstrate that this topic has many layers to it that most of us don't consider.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Seems logical to me.
Obama's opposition was a political calculation and not an expression of his real belief. It may surprise you to find out that politicians regularly lie to get elected.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Hypocrites .. that's what I think those that support gay marriage are. They don't give a flip about equality, they only want to force their moral beliefs on those that disagree, and enable a very small group of select people to get benefits. If they truly wanted equality, they would fight to ELIMINATE all benefits tied to being married.
Interesting that you seem to be directing all of this hate to "gay hypocrites" instead of people who support straight marriage. Do you hold the same opinion about civil rights activists who fought to repeal mycegination laws? I don't think there should be special benefits to getting married, but given that civil marriage exists, there is no rational reason to restrict it to straights. Extending it to more people is a good thing, right?
Also, let's get real. Marriage-like benefits will not be extended to anything other than romantic pairings anytime soon, or ever. It's just how it is.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
But I have the perception, rightly or wrongly, that nearly every top executive position (even at nonprofits) pays a salary that is not commensurate with the person's work or value to the organization, and that these positions are instead used as a reward for people who the company directors happens to like.
So, I am comfortable with Eich, or even someone more hateful, being paid a high but appropriate salary for doing lots of good work for the company. But if, as I believe, most of the CEO's salary is a reward from the board of directors for being the person they like the most, then I feel justified in throwing a fit if I don't like him the most.
Immediately before being promoted, Eich had been the Chief Technology Officer at Mozilla. He's also the guy who invented Javascript. Do you really think he didn't make an technical contribution to Mozilla's products?
These are great ideas, and you'd probably get a lot more support for them if you didn't waste time looking for someone to blame, and pointing fingers at the people who may very well support your cause.
There really isn't much to go on, at this point. We do know that the Prop8 issue made him a toxic pick from the perspective of some of the groups that Mozilla's message might ordinarily work well with(except that they are cryptographically incapable of supporting iPads; but so it goes); but organizations have soft-pedaled all sorts of stuff, including much more serious matters, without serious incident before, and there appear to be confounding factors here (eg. half the board resigning over the choice, allegedly because they didn't think he was a good choice for 'mobile' or something; but something irrelevant to Prop8. If anything, that faction probably is wildly annoyed that their disagreement with 'sure, the CTO seems like a good CEO to me' got sidetracked into a culture war, especially if they want their mobile strategy in emerging markets to not pick up a potential liability.)
There similarly seems to be no available report that he was overtly pushed, though reports vary on whether he 'left' or whether he was 'given the opportunity to leave', so we don't really know if he was told privately that he could go the easy way or the hard way, or whether he was personally butthurt about the whole affair. We just don't know.
I think his "evolved" position was a political calculation, and not an expression of his real belief.
Many insurance companies and private businesses already allow for 'domestic partners' when it comes to insurance, I don't see any requirement there that those partners be having sex.
I agree with your point. However, plenty of organizations limit benefits for "domestic partners" to "same sex domestic partners, with the implication that it's only for gay couples.
You are right, though. The government shouldn't have any place regulating the sex lives of consenting adults. People's business relationships, especially with the government, can and should be regulated without regard to whether the people involved are having sex.
Speaking of rights, a person has the right to their opinion, possibly different from the (local) majority, and they have the right to support causes they believe in. This is about a set of people penalizing a person for having a different view by taking away his employment.
It's ironic that, while arguing for one right, the proponents have exactly violated several others.
I'm disgusted by the entire soap opera and very disappointed that Mozilla (and this guy whom I'd never heard of before) caved in to outside pressure. I'll be looking at other browsers.
Naah... Everybody knows that ideology takes precedence over everything.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...excluding the duty to mediate contracts.
What the hell do you think marriage is???
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Discrimination based on one's sexually or discrimination based one's religious/political beliefs? It's seems the discrimination of homosexuals has been replaced by discrimination against anyone who opposes gay marriage. http://hotair.com/archives/201... Which seems to be the majority of the people that voted for the ban because it passed.
Well, 'invented javascript' may not be something to talk about too loudly; but I'm perfectly willing to suspect that he was a good CTO, and (in absence of personal knowledge one way or the other) give him, and Mozilla, the benefit of the doubt and asume that he was still making a strong and ongoing technical contribution, rather than being somebody who was pretty hot stuff in the Netscape days and they haven't been able to get rid of for legacy reasons.
What I'd be less certain about is the notion that 'CTO', even 'really good CTO' is necessarily a particularly good indicator of 'good CEO'. My suspicion, in this particular case, is heightened by the board-level resignations that allegedly had nothing to do with Prop8; but with his selection as CEO, and the fact that his Prop8 donation was a matter of public knowledge during at least a couple of years of his tenure as CTO and nobody did anything with that.
I don't have any useful inside information or anything; but based on the public information, this situation sounds to me like a techie(either one who is still sharp, one who is absolutely untouchable on historical grounds, or both) attempted to take the helm, either based on his own (mis)understanding of how 'inherited' the CEO position is or at the urging of an overconfident faction within the company, and then learned the hard way that 'CEO' has different job requirements, that there was a faction on the board opposed to him, and that anything goes in high-profile spats while things might be handled with a semblance of dignity and process further down.
There's a difference between giving money to a candidate who opposes same-sex marriage, and supporting a ballot initiative to make it unconstitutional (not just illegal mind, but *unconstitutional*). I'm opposed to people getting drunk, but I wouldn't vote for prohibition.
Those that modded you troll kind of proved your point. Although I think you exaggerated quite a bit, I agree with what you're saying. When an employer can dictate your politics, what's the point of democracy?
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
In the old days, people would get married by the state (coiurt house or whatever) and then have another marriage in the church.
It was condensed later on.
This has never been the tradition in the English-speaking world. Some European countries have moved to this model since the nineteenth century.
I completely agree. Legal marriage should be opposed whether it's for gay or straight couples. Why is it the government's business who I've devoted my life to? Why should I be taxed differently because my significant other and I decided to sign a piece of paper? It's an archaic social custom that should have no place in modern society.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
"real fascists from the pro-gay side" - can that combination really work?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Societies have rejected homosexual behavior for centuries. Why is there now a push to make this behavior acceptable now?
Interesting that you seem to be directing all of this hate to "gay hypocrites" instead of people who support straight marriage.
Hate? I didn't read anything hateful in that comment. Incorrectly reframing an argument is one of the biggest problems with this issue.
"I don't believe in gay marriage," for example, often gets reframed into "gays don't deserve rights."
Also, let's get real. Marriage-like benefits will not be extended to anything other than romantic pairings anytime soon, or ever. It's just how it is.
Fifteen years ago no one would have believed that gay marriage would ever become a reality. It was a weird and foreign idea. Now it's legal in a bunch of states and will probably be a national thing before long. Things aren't just the way they are. Things change and that change starts by people talking about it.
Unfortunately, the actual marriage related problems haven't be framed in the proper context and hence the solutions -- gay marriage -- is completely wrong. The problem is marriage as a legal status for individuals. It shouldn't exist and no benefits for it should exist either. Extending it to homosexuals does nothing to solve the actual problems presented by legal marriage.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Je vois que t'as fait la, citoyen.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If you've got an argument about marriage tax benefits (or election bribes i prefer to call them) then go for it, i'm with you on that. But don't bash the gays and supporters for going and asking for equality. All those other groups can do the same and make the arguments if they feel discriminated against because of their cohabitation status. You can probably blame the Christian churches for creating the stupid laws against gays etc in the first place due to their stupid stupid bigotted rules in their holy book of choice.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Someone with some common sense:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...
Where is, for example, Microsoft, so support a competing product with $1 billions and to come in protection of basic rights of your fellow citizens?
I don't have a link handy, but Microsoft actually tried getting an Amendment added to the state constitution of Washington explicitly legalizing gay marriage. Their logic went, "Say we're targeting a world class developer because we want to hire them to work at Microsoft headquarters in Redmond.. We're obviously going to put together a compensation package to try to bring them on board. Part of it is obviously "Redmond is a great place to live." If they're gay, and gay marriage is legal in Washington, that's another point in our column."
Apart from it being a Religious term (in the Bible, it mentions that marriage is between a husband and wife, being man and woman). That's part of the base scripture.
The bible uses a lot of words. That doesn't make them all religious terms. You can have non-religous marriage.
A possibly less confrontational way round this is to just start a religion that does't have the figures that have said things in conflict with what you want to happen, and go with that, and its marriage systems and so on.
Do you realize that many gay people are religous, go to gay-friendly churches, and have commitment ceremonies in those churches?
The problem is that the situation you've described could not have been possible without the Straight, One Man One Woman Marriage Insistent Religious Folk who used to be polygamous but WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT. There is a whole hell of a lot of political and historical baggage in this situation, we see the gay marriage supporters being ruthless because they actually have to be. You've tried to distill the love out of marriage, but you're doing it wrong. A domestic partnership is something different, which is actually a problem and not one caused by the people who are being forbidden rights. Marriage is a contract, which shouldn't be restricted by irrelevant data such as gender. You've hit on a lot of good points but you looked at the people fighting to fix it (gay marriage rights) and demonized them because you think the rights should be MORE universal.
It's actually a serious argument:
There are really two different issues here, one is entirely around the meaning of the word marriage and the other has to do with rights taken away and then handed back as privileges - with strings attached.
The latter is easier to solve in theory - just keep our rights to start with. You may pay taxes and mandatory fees for benefits at work - and then be told you must be in a state-blessed marriage in order to collect those benefits. This is obviously unfair and wrong. But this could be straightened out relatively simply, by not mandating these arrangements in the first place. There is no reason for the system to take money out of your paycheck only to hand it back if and when you file the forms and show the state blessing - it's entirely unnecessary. You should be allowed to keep your money and buy what you want with it, what suits your needs, it should not be a situation where you have all these people, this bureaucracy, all up in your business all the time.
The first issue is less tractable, I fear people will still be having that argument generations hence. But the wonderful thing is, if you solve the second issue as I have suggested, the first issue just becomes unimportant. Sure, people will disagree heatedly but with the government no longer involved, defining who is right and who is wrong, robbing Peter to pay Paul's bills, there is no longer any urgency to the argument, no political dimension. No one faces loss of their rights or their livelihood over it. It becomes, as it should be, a discussion for church not a struggle to direct the power of the state against those who disagree with you.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
"The articles just points out how much damage the bigot views of Mr. Eich could have caused Mozilla and the employees of Mozilla were more then justified to call for his resignation. If you believes and actions are damaging the company you are suppose to represent, then you are not fit to be the CEO."
His views weren't bigot views. He's very friendly with the LGBT community in general, but his views on marriage don't happen to coincide. He didn't go hounding them out of jobs etc. He just expressed a view, and put his money where his mouth is. You know, freedom of speech and all that. And freedom of religion (hey, Jesus is recorded in the Bible as being against gay marriage, so is it unsurprising that a religious guy would listen to that, and also go on record that he 'believes' in the teachings of his religion)?
So, harm to his employees? Not so much.
His actions (inventing JavaScript, founding the Mozilla foundation, attending talks and seriously doing a lot of good in the developer and open world) are what he should be judged by in terms of his fitness to run the company, and I find those credentials a lot better than the mob howling for blood.
So, if you think Google are perfectly in the right to withhold money from Mozilla because of someone's personal opinion, then is it also fine to start withholding money for pro LGBT organisations because they say things that you think may be damaging? Really? You're opening that Pandora's box?
By all means, consider the guy as having had a dickish moment in supporting the organisations. But considering that as something that makes him unworthy to run an organisation? Wow..
As the parent poster pointed out, it is benefits from government and companies too. All other parts can be accomplished through contrscts other than marriage. It isn't until you get into the spousal and family benefits through employment benifitd or tax and social security benifits that marriage becomes unique in contracts
Apart from it being a Religious term (in the Bible, it mentions that marriage is between a husband and wife, being man and woman). That's part of the base scripture. Apparently the word of God.
In case you weren't aware, there have also been marriages outside of the influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition. While people in the Middle East were writing the Bible, there was still stuff going on in the entire rest of the world.
You mean like Obama or the Clintons?
Bill Clinton went even further and signed the defense of marriage act into law.
Oh.. i guess the USA isn't a company. They certainly do not run it like one.
That's why it's called a marriage contract. And everybody is entitled to one, as in, it is a fundamental right.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There are currently over 1000 right and privileges that married couples enjoy from the state. Mr. Eich supported a law that would withhold those rights and privileges to homosexual couples. How is that not damaging the LGBT community?
Married couples enjoy this kind of benefits:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
* Tax Benefits
* Estate Planning Benefits
* Government Benefits
* Employment Benefits
* Medical Benefits
* Death Benefits
* Family Benefits
* Housing Benefits
* Consumer Benefits
* and Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Mr. Eich and the other supporters of Prop 8. wants to take away all those benefits from homosexual couples, from people who are born differently as Mr. Eich. That makes him a bigot.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
This is entirely dangerous. Eich made his donation in private, he never walked arround proclaiming he held some belief. A law that was passed after the fact exposed this cpntribution long after it had been made and there was no way of changing it.
But now you have a number of employees on record as being intolorant to someone's former political posistions. This can now harm thier potential future employment opertunities. I would not have any empathy for them either, it would be like karma carryong a baseball bat and swinging withh all its might.
Your intolerance of my intolerance is OPRESSION!
Wait...what?
Its not a fundamental right to have state sanctioned marriage, what IS the fundamental right is the 'equal protection under the law' clause.
Good-bye
A mother and son are entitled to it? A man and his three wives are entitled to it? Someone and their neighbors kid is entitled to it? Everyone is entitled to it?
And yes, you can have marriage without sexual relations. Especially when it is just a contract.
"Since nothing is stopping gay couples from having ceremonies and living as if married, as far as I can tell, gay marriage is all about forcing acceptance and government benefits."
You're half right. This isn't about forcing acceptance. It's about forcing equal treatment under law. It's a little thing called "personal freedom". You can be critical of gays and of gays getting married all you want. The minute you try to use the government to force your beliefs on other, by denying them the same choices everyone else has, however, you've stepped across the line into the "anti-freedom" camp. When you do that, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You rightfully deserve scorn and boycotts and the label of "bigot". If Eich doesn't like gays getting married, fine he can talk about what he thinks and try to persuade people. That's not what he did though, is it? He worked to try to force his view on others by controlling their actions with legislation.
"If the gay community and it's supporters put as much effort into really creating equality for all, instead of selfishly grabbing benefits for themselves..."
Umm, grabbing benefits everyone else has IS creating equality for all. All your attitudes are a rehash of the same bullshit we heard about interracial marriage and marriage for non-christians. Go back to the stone age already.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
It fascinates me how many people want to stifle those they disagree with; are willing to put up with the chilling effects.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"It is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8," explained Google co-founder Sergey Brin in 2008. "We should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love."
He also wrote: "While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument.."
Clearly they forgot that part.
The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
A marriage contract amongst blood relatives would be superfluous and redundant. And minors are not allowed to sign binding contracts. However let's not stop people from delving into the absurd if they are looking to keep homosexuals out also. Personally, I think they'll get more mileage out of the "religious freedom" angle, where civil rights law is considered "discriminatory". People are actually falling for that one.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This is culture war, not common sense. They want to legalize gay marriage so that they have a way of smashing marriage and traditional values.
It has nothing to do with "tolerance." This is intolerance of the majority, intolerance of history, and hatred of normalcy by a group that wants to seize power.
This is the same group that has traditionally run nations into the ground.
Futurist Traditionalism
This guy was responsible for Javascript? The most convoluted and bizarre language this side of Lotus Notes?
Screw the bit about his stance on gays. He should be locked in a room with Ray Ozzie and left there until the Second Coming.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You bring up two topics: the morality of gay marriage, and the completely separate issue of the financial and legal benefits the the USA government bestows on married couples.
You make a persuasive argument against the government giving special rights and benefits to married couples that are denied to other long term, stable relationships. I agree with you that the government has no business doling out special rights to some couples because they made a commitment called marriage while similar commitments are denied these benefits.
It is my opinion that government should not give any financial benefits simply because your are married. Further, I think the government should get out of the marriage business completely. Marriage, outside of religious ceremonies, should be replaced by civil contracts.A lot of people don't really understand that when they get married they are agreeing to a huge and convoluted legal contract. A range of simpler contracts should be available that spell out the rights and privileges of both partners: power of attorney, child custody and guardianship, shared assets, and how to dissolve the partnership would be some of the key things to include in these contracts..
The moral issue is should being gay be treated like being a red head, or being black, or being white, that is something that the law should prevent everyone from discriminating against.
In this case I disagree with you and say that being gay should be something that no one, and no law, can use as something to justify discrimination. Being gay is like having blue eyes, something you are born with. All government programs, civil rights, etc... should be available to gay people just as if they were straight.
And hospitals do NOT decide the rules about who can visit and who has the right to make medical decisions those are all laws - laws that currently discriminate against a lot of people. rules governing wills, child custody, etc... are also generally unfair to anyone other than straight couples.
Gay people are not forcing their morals on anyone. They are asking to be treated equally before the law. Asking for people to stop discriminating against yourself is not forcing your morals on anyone; it is asking for the law to be fair.
Finally, gay people are not "greedily" grabbing benefits they are just asking for the same benefits others already have, and you so eloquently argued that everyone should have. Are you saying that all committed, long term relationships should get benefits, except gay ones? That would hardly be moral.
Anarchists never rule
"The militant gay people think they have the right to tell other people what moral values they have to have."
As opposed to pretty much the christian which think they have a god given right (pun intended) to impose their moral value on people, among others things by refusing those people either the same right as others (gay marriage) or by imposing their moral view to stops some type of operation (abortion) or by imposing their religious view in classrooms (creationism in sheep fell - ID), or even by trying to sneak prayer and religion in government stuff like classroom, courtroom. As opposed to the people which want to be inclusive in rights. Welp. The irony burns deeply in that one.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I have a suspicion that the whole "Prop 8 support" thing is a smokescreen for the real reason he stepped down. It makes a great bone to support to the LGBT crowd and let's them have a "win."
However, three members the Mozilla board quit after Eich was named CEO - and they did that before the OKCupid stuff and have said it was entirely unrelated to his support for Prop 8. (Apparently one was planning on quitting after the CEO selection anyway, but the reasons for the other two leaving aren't known.)
So it's entirely possible that Eich left less over the Prop 8 stuff and more over internal politics. Apparently there was a group inside Mozilla that wanted an outside CEO to be named in order to better monetize Mozilla. (And if that's the case, losing Eich may be the worst thing that's ever happened to Mozilla.)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
It seems crap false equivalencies are all the rage these days. Do tell how not-even-a-boycott of a consumer product is on the same planet as legalized discrimination against a minority. If there was a not-even-a-boycott against Godfather's pizzas because of Herman Caine's harassment towards woman, would you be comparing it to Jim Crow?
If not, why not?
Did you hate the idea of putting businesses out of business and workers out of jobs because of consumer boycotts against legalized discrimination? If not, why not? Now before someone complains that Prop 8 isn't Apartheid, remember that not-even-a-boycott of a browser isn't remotely close to personal discrimination against Eich because he's a minority.
Nothing, thanks for asking.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Link for those still comparing a man marrying another man to a man marrying a dog, or in your case, a horse.
You can refuse to do business with a class of people who are not "protected" under discrimination law. But you cannot refuse to do business with people who ARE protected. Wasn't there just a lawsuit recently about a wedding cake designer who LOST a court case about refusing to make a cake for a gay couple?
You call it "economic pressure" when a group you support is wielding the boycott.. but it's illegal discrimination when a group you don't like is wielding the boycott.
That's not a free market at all.
Yes it is... are you just realizing that not all oppression is bad to all people??
I don't know if he 'invented' as in 'was the guy who looked least busy when Netscape needed some means of doing basic in-browser twiddling, and they needed it by yesterday so he hacked something out' or as in 'actually committed, in cold blood, many of the design choices that made it what it is today'; but he definitely had a hand in it.
It's an archaic social custom that should have no place in modern society.
Like clothing. I'm sure there's no valid reason for that one, either.
Most things that have lasted for thousands of years have done so for a good reason. Find that reason, examine the possibility of other ways to meet the requirements, and maybe you will have a way to make it a thing of the past.
The two biggest reasons for marriage are raising children and determining inheritances. We can mitigate one (child-rearing) and set some rules in place of the other based on new technology like DNA testing, but the possibility of guaranteeing where obligations lie has only been around for a generation. Social norms will take a while to catch up.
I personally think marriage is a great idea, and I'm a big fan of freedom. (The two might be opposed to each other...) The trouble comes in when you tie things that aren't obviously interconnected and have to deal with the impact of that. Tax breaks and medical coverage being tied to marriage are just a couple of those. And also when you deal poorly with the things that are obviously linked to (the current idea of) marriage - child-rearing etc. - when the marriage dissolves.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
This is abso-fucking-lutely ri-goddamn-diculous. So many of these organizations bitching about Mozilla are relying on Javascript! I can't wrap my head around such stupidity. It's bad to use a web browser Mozilla created far before they hired a guy who donated his own money to Prop 8, but you can use a programming language he created just because you can't do business without it? Kick rocks. They guy is entitled to his opinion just like the rest of those assholes.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Mozilla is not a public company. It is a 501C3 tax exempt non profit and its wholly owned taxable subsidiary. Our stockholders are the people of the world. Our decisions are based on maximizing the value of the Internet for the benefit of everyone everywhere, especially those who lack representation from the giant institutional multinational publicly traded corporations like Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft.
Marriage is an ancient rite (not a right) that for many is part of their religious practice. Why is the State a party to my contract with my wife? Why does the state provide the language that can not be modified in this contract? I oppose the current incarnation of the gay marriage effort because they support the status quo. They selectively apply "freedom to marry" only to gays, when in fact many other groups are affected, in some cases imprisoned. Marriage is an issue of freedom of association, I choose to enter into a contract with my wife. It should be our choice to decide what the terms of that contract are. The government should have nothing to do with marriage or define the terms of a contract between two (or more) adults. People wanting to get married should be able to have a religious ceremony, should they choose, as their way of entering into this agreement and those who dont should be able to go to marrigecontract.com and template out an aggrement that suits them including a pre-determined disoulation system that does not involve the courts, just like any other contract. They beg the state for permission to engage in a fundamental freedom. If they focused their efforts on personal freedom, including anyone marrying whoever is willing to agree, even groups or siblings, then that is their right to choose to associate and enter into a contract, something the state infringes on, a worthy battle. They support the suppression of fundamental rights by not demanding them, but asking for an exception from the states tyranny on their fundamental rights for their group for this small item.
And how is your fight against heterosexual marriage going?
Since there is no credible movement to end legal marriage for opposite sex couples the only equitable approach the government can take is to extend marriage rights to cover same sex couples.
Apart from it being a Religious term (in the Bible, it mentions that marriage is between a husband and wife, being man and woman).
That's part of the base scripture. Apparently the word of God.
And some parts say that a marriage is between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman... King Solomon, his 700 wives and 300 concubines come to mind.
Which part is the "base"? Which part is the "word"?
Not being facetious, but using the Bible to define marriage, or allow for slavery, or capital punishment, or... Well, there needs to be a stronger case on how to run a multi/non-religious society other than "my book says so...(let me find the right part)"
Please notice that there is no evidence that Google did or said anything. This story is pure speculation about why Eich resigned. Plausible, but not convincing.
FWIW, I could make up an equally substantiated story that it was because he was clearly affiliaated with the council of Boskone. It might not be as plausible or as conviincing, but it would have as much evidence in support of it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So you're going to ignore completely the fact that our desire to bond and share a home with another (or others) is at the core of what makes us human.
Laws concerning marriage did not arise in a vacuum. They came about because, when humans reach maturity, they typically pair up to live, eat, sleep, share resources, and often make babies together; and these pairings tend to be exclusive (or mostly so), lifelong (or at least spanning many years), and recognised by others as family/social units.
Reproductive concerns aside, it is still in society's interest to encourage stable social groups, and social groups don't get any more basic than couples.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Since nothing is stopping gay couples from having ceremonies and living as if married, as far as I can tell, gay marriage is all about forcing acceptance and government benefits. It's just more of today's entitlement society where someone wants something from the government. Of they want the government to force companies to give them benefits. It has absolutely nothing to do with love.
Here is where your argument falls down. It's not about "wanting something from the government" or "an example of entitlement society", it's about *being treated the same*.
Married couples get those benefits. Gay married couples do not (and are actively prevented from it by homophobic laws in some states).
The argument is about levelling the playing field.
Either everyone gets those benefits or no one does. The objection is that married couples are treated differently if the couple happens to have the same gender.
The muddy water false equivalence argument that homophobes have brought up (what's to stop two roommates getting married for the benefits, or two sisters etc) is no different to the current situation as it applies to heterosexual couples - what's to stop two heterosexual people marrying to claim the benefits by "gaming the system"? Namely that *they are then married* and that has certain legal and societal implications.
Marriage existed before the bible and before the christian god was invented.
Next question.
(with apologies to Paul Harvey)
Bill Clinton went even further and signed the defense of marriage act into law.
Well, whaddaya know, folks, that is actually 100% TRUE! BUT--here's page 2:
Initially introduced in May 1996, DOMA passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities...
And there you have... The Rest Of The Story!
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Eich was not fired. He chose to resign. Maybe he did so because he cares about the foundation and didn't want to be a distraction. Maybe he was told he'd better resign or they would lose their funding and have to lay everyone off. We don't know, but the insinuations of the original story are out of line for implying so. The truth is we just don't know.
This isn't some free speech issue or some form of inquisition trying to purge the unbelievers.
Eich chose to wade into a controversial issue by making political donations (after all, a conservative majority of SCOTUS claims money == speech). Those "free speech" statements offended a bunch of people and he chose to resign rather than drag the non-profit Mozilla foundation through an ordeal over it.
Anyone in a leadership position is certainly free to make any statements or support any political cause they want. Employees, customers/donors, etc are also free to loudly complain or refuse to associate with the organization if they disagree. That comes with the territory. We wouldn't give Eich a pass if he were sending checks to neo-Nazi organizations. A leader always takes a risk that they'll piss people off by taking a stance. He was CTO of Mozilla at the time, he knew what the consequences could be and made the donation anyway.
A few decades ago it was accepted that blacks and whites shouldn't intermarry. Even some people who campaigned for civil rights still held such a view. If Eich were donating to a group promoting a constitutional amendment to outlaw interracial marriages almost none of you would be wringing your hands over free speech. Everyone would laugh at him for being a dumbass and move on with their lives.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Even if someone faces no offical sanctions for speaking out, they can certainly be excluded socially, even to the point of being driven out of the organization. That's how human group dynamics have always worked since we were grunting at each other and throwing pointy sticks.
Furthermore, technology has always been intertwined with personalities, politics, and the like. Only very rarely is it always 100% about the pure technology. You can write the best code in the world but if you can't play nice with others you run the risk of your code languishing in obscurity.
Social norms are changing; you can change with them, you can keep your mouth shut about it, or you can fight for the status quo. Each of those courses of action has risk associated with them. Eich chose to fight for the status quo, then chose to stick by his guns when it pissed a lot of people off, including a lot of the very people his organization depends on to contribute money and code from their own good will! That has consequences and it always has.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
I did the same thing. But, this was only the straw that broke the camel's back. The whole "I'm gonna suck down 2GB of memory caching every JS routine you've ever come across on the Interwebz even though you haven't needed it in weeks" thing was really the bulk of it.
I got used to having to reboot Windows every few days, but I draw the line at having to restart firefox once/day because it's greedy with RAM.
Superflurious and redundant? I think not. Spouses get widowers benifits that children/parents do not. They also get oyher benifits like insurance and so on that parents/children do not. Minors also have their parents sign legal contracts for them.
Anything absurd would be your comment and your attemp to weasle out of it when it isn't convienient. If it is convienient to dismiss something troubling your podition, the flaw is with your position.
Your entire post is a tour force in willful ignorance and false equivilancies, but I'll just respond to the first point here.
More like it's no longer socially acceptable to be bigoted towards gays, any more than it is socially acceptable to be bigoted towards Jews or blacks. If this were 1960, would you be defending Eich if he had donated a thousand dollars towards defending Jim Crow?
"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
Is Glenn Beck writing the summaries now?
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I get scared as hell when I see people expressing themselves with this kind of tone in public and thinking there's nothing wrong with it.
Haven't heard of Godwin's Law have you?
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Since a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler has occurred, this online discussion apparently has a length. Nice catch.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Are you saying that a business employees persecuting someone for a common political belief held before that someone took a position is in no way reflective of that company's moral grounds?
No one who supports free speech should have anything to do with any company that retaliates against someone for political speech. This can not only get peoplr you disagree with booted out but ypu not hired because you supported something controversial like samr sex marriage. And remember, prop 8 passed and was overturned by an activist judge and yhe elected political leaders failed to follow the will of the people and refused to defend it. There are more people who were apposed to changing the definition of marriage to allow gays to marry than there ever was supporting it.
Depends on if they all hypocritically run companies that claim to strive for diversity.
Eich was the very definition of diversity. With him being forced out that claim is a lie.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't think Eich would have been considered for the post if he supported a hypothetical "Atheist" campaign that called Christians idiots and Christian leaders charlatans.
What utter bullshit. He would have been accepted without question, there are a lot of VERY vocal atheists throughout the tech industry. No-one would have said a word.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...
Unfortunately, the actual marriage related problems haven't be framed in the proper context and hence the solutions -- gay marriage -- is completely wrong. The problem is marriage as a legal status for individuals. It shouldn't exist and no benefits for it should exist either. Extending it to homosexuals does nothing to solve the actual problems presented by legal marriage.
Yet, oddly, a movement to abolish legal marriage does not exist as far as I can see. I never run across conservatives arguing that the solution to the nations "marriage problems" (whatever they may feel they are) is to abolish the legal institution. This notion only pops in discussions of preventing gays from marrying.
As long as legal marriage exists, with the innumerable societal benefits (and responsibilities) attached, denying it to gays is denying equal protection under the law, which is unconstitutional.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Are you same sad little troll that stalks Tom 822?
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
If you guys want some respect, I recommend doing something about the batshit insane folks that seem to think that anything less than the biggest baddest gun that's manufactured is insufficient.
You simply do not understand that the guns most places try to ban first "assault rifles" are not the "biggest baddest" guns by far, but instead the most modular and among the easiest to shoot - the "bigness" off them helps reduce recoil making them much more pleasing to use.
And yet you see some reason to persist in claiming people shouldn't use a well-designed tool simply because you fear it because of size??
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
C'mon, just take a look at those Nazi officer uniforms.
replace gay marriage with interracial marriage (which wasn't fully legal in this country until the late 60's) and it's obvious how ridiculous everything you said is.
Yeah, they would have gotten so much better a deal on gay rights if they had supported McCain & Palin.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Hypocrites .. that's what I think those that support gay marriage are. They don't give a flip about equality, they only want to force their moral beliefs on those that disagree, and enable a very small group of select people to get benefits. If they truly wanted equality, they would fight to ELIMINATE all benefits tied to being married. Tax laws could be changed to allow for household incomes to be used. Social Security survivor-ship benefits could be simply modified to allow for one person to receive them, and set several rules (such as living together for a number of years while working and paying social security taxes). D
Well said. While I don't agree with everything you had to say, I agree with the sentiment almost entirely.
What we are seeing is a repetition of the pathologies that have driven witch hunts in the past. I think it's amazing how much power the press has given such a tiny percentage of the population to demand that they be obeyed lest bad things befall the dissenters. It's astounding to watch it in action, and mirrors many dark times in the history of our civilizations.
This is an ex-parrot!
Fine, go off and sit in your little cave by yourself while the rest of us enjoy this civilisation thing which you apparently don't have a use for.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It's not that he publicly disagrees with the majority of the tech industry...it's that he's put his money where his mouth is. Most of us are firmly in the disagreeing-with-the-SCOTUS on the whole money == speech concept.
In short, he's free to believe whatever he wants and most of us won't give a flying fuck. But when he steps past belief to action, those actions will have consequences. He sought to deprive gays of their right to marry. The tech community sought to deprive him of his ability to be Mozilla's CEO. Both are free to do so and should expect the consequences. I expect those against gay marriage to now organize boycotts of Mozilla and all the people who got Eich fired. And that, too, is their right.
What I don't get is why. I mean, we are talking about a job? This is Mozilla right? They make a web browser? As much as I disagree with him on gay marriage (hell, the last wedding I went to had two grooms) I really don't think making a political contribution should cost a person a job.
I mean, I could understand if he actually was a politician, yes, they should be fired for their political statements and beliefs, but, wtf does it have to do with producing a browser? If it was about some policy he was pushing for at the company that is one thing but.... for a campaign donation, to a cause that lost and is over with?
I mean, he didn't come out and say he was going to make the company ignore the law and refuse to acknowledge same sex spouses of their employees? Did I miss that? because, this seems to me like being sore winners.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Um.. no. It's the gay employees calling for him to be ousted for not supporting politics favoring their lifestyle. Would you support him ousting gay employees because of his beliefs? Of course not.
You think it over. They're just as bad as Eich.
if that gay employee was trying to suppress other peoples rights, yea, think it over you're just as bad as Eich but a lot less intelligent
Right, businesses should be allowed to go back to serving black people just assuage your free market concerns
it's as much a political belief as the KKK's beliefs are political
150 years ago no one ever thought inter racial marriage would ever be legal,
ahh but they are just good catholics
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
1) Brandon Eich wasn't executed.
2) Mozilla ensures its financial existence, while Salem Puritanism ceased to be considered a credible religious doctrine.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Divorce laws can be changed to recognize civil unions so those wishing protection without getting married can be afforded it. Many insurance companies and private businesses already allow for 'domestic partners' when it comes to insurance, I don't see any requirement there that those partners be having sex.
que?? since when did married people have sex??
Following all this to it's logical conclusion, there is an excellent argument for allowing incestuous civil unions and the, following on from that, marriage.
After all, 20 of the States permit first cousin marriages and another six permit them under certain circumstances.
Why should not a brother and sister (or sister and sister, etc.) living together in a long term relationship be excluded from the benefits of marriage? There are hundreds of thousands of single men and women living monogamously with their mother or father for the long haul.
The Cutter
Intolerance is intolerance. And it will always exist. Mr Eich did not beat up gays, he simply exercised his right to an opinion. He exercised that right within the bounds of the law, as a proper citizen should. He was subsequently bullied out of a job.
Here is how it should be:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
The WSJ reports that neither Mozilla nor Google would address the $1B elephant in the room: "Mozilla is negotiating with Google Inc. to renew a search contract that provides most of its revenue. Google is openly supportive of gay rights, so it may have been difficult to renew such a deal with Mr. Eich at the helm, said a former Mozilla insider. Mozilla and Google declined to comment on the negotiations."
OK lets get back to the original question. Do I believe Google bullied Eich into resigning? I think perhaps a better question would be who doesn't? The answer is so obvious they have done everything but put up a neon sign. And since everyone seems so concerned in making the issue about his believe in prop 8, OK. I'll give you MY opinion. EVERYONE deserves the same rights. It is justice for ALL, not except Bob over there. People do not just wake up one day and go "Hey think I'll be gay today!". They are born with that sexual preference. Everyone should be treated fairly and I don't think Mr Eich has been.
I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
Which has nothing to do with the discussion - if you don't want it, move to get the laws changed. Until then, realise that everyone is the same and deserves the same rights. This nonsensical cop-out argument seems like pathetic hand-waiving in a vain attempt to make someone seem not bigoted, when their actions speak volumes to the contrary.
Let me guess: you think you're the first person to come up with this, and that it's clever. Let me disabuse you of both those notions. This is a common internet trope, the "inverse Godwin."
Slavery has taken many forms. In the Western tradition, it was reserved for prisoners of war who served a kind of indentured servitude. It was part of the feudal system and was thus managed by social, not governmental forces. Chattel slavery -- which is what you're speaking of -- came about when this system was overthrown.
In other words, not only did your argument fail, but you made my point for me.
Futurist Traditionalism
He was free to have an opinion. He was free to voice his opinion. He was free to donate money to causes which shared and championed his opinion. People were free to complain about his opinion (as it denied people a fundamental right, according to both the US supreme court and the UN human rights declaration).
This fracas has, for me at least, nothing to do with gay/straight/whatever - the guy wanted to deny people their rights due to a quirk of nature. If he said all people with brown hair don't deserve to get married as they're second-class citizens, I'd feel the same way. He is a man who thinks it's fine to deny the rights of people he disagrees with. Mozilla not liking the negative press of them having someone who would deny the rights of others as a CEO got rid of him.
Where's the problem?
He funded an organisation which tried to deny fundamental rights to people. His opinion was never stifled. He has a right to an opinion, but not to a job. He was the bully, not those who don't like injustice.
The militant gay people think they have the right to tell other people what moral values they have to have.
LOL. You sound like one of the Christians who complain about persecution. I mean really? I bet if you let the gay people alone, they would leave you alone. You do not see Prop 8 as actually doing something TO gay people?
Look, I am not gay or in California (but I repeat myself) so in this particular instance, I have no horse in the race. I am just calling out silliness when I see it. When you claim that when gays defend themselves against an attack, Prop 8 in this case, they are forcing their morals on you, I just have to laugh at the absurdity of the claim. It is ludicrous.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Why should I be taxed differently because my significant other and I decided to sign a piece of paper?
Very valid questions. I am not sure that I can answer them but perhaps I can provide some perspective:
It is in society's interest to promote the creation of new members of society. The majority of children are created through a male and a female having sexual intercourse.
Society has an interest in the child being reared in a secure environment, hopefully one that is positive and nurturing so that the child becomes a healthy and socially well-adjusted adult.
One of the methods accepted by society at large for encouraging the creation of children and providing for their well-being while becoming adults is to formalize what a "family" means in its most basic sense. Marriage is a tool for "encouraging" the maintenance of this familial construct.
It is not surprising that people are resistant to swapping out portions of this construct for others, such as artificial insemination, gay marriage, adoption, etc. Some swaps have some very persuasive arguments for why they negate the entire concept of marriage as a tool for family creation and social stability (gay marriage), others do not, (artificial insemination, adoption).
For myself, I am generally for what is known as traditional marriage. I do not really care what gay or childless couples do (not that they are equivalent) or what benefits they can accrue by "aping" traditional marriage. All of these people who are yelling and screaming about it all just seem absurd to me. Keep your eyes on your own business and stop being jealous or envious that someone else might have it "as good as you".
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
It is the current batch of homophobic religious nuts that are trying to redefine things. The Christian church had same sex vows almost a thousand years ago.
Really? Please, do tell. Any citations?
I don't find the supporters of 'straight only' marriage hypocritical, they admit they want special rights. I find them misguided in what they are trying to accomplish though, to force their moral values onto others through something that doesn't stop a lifestyle, i.e. two people living together and having sex.
Interesting you used the word 'hate'. I reread the above and don't understand why you would use that word except for the 'hypocrites' line. Probably should have worded that one phrase a little better (i.e. arguments are hypocritical, not people). I didn't say it anywhere, about hating anyone, meant to state an opinion of what I feel their argument is (i.e. hypocritical).
Maybe if more people used reason instead of emotion, this issue could get resolved. Instead, those that disagree are labeled 'haters' and 'homophobes', vile words that denigrate and divide. Terms that are divisive are often used by someone when they run out of valid points to make.
As for marriage-like benefits not being extended, they already are. Many companies now offer 'civil union' or 'domestic partner' benefits. None of those state that a couple have to be romantically involved. In fact, there is *NOTHING* in marriage benefits that say people have to be paired romantically. There have been many marriages of convenience that were very legal. Those 'domestic partner'-like benefits were extended by people putting pressure on specific items, not trying to force their moral beliefs or attacking people as haters. They used their wallets to go elsewhere if they could.
Since romance,sex, and love have nothing to do with whether or not a couple are recognized as married by the government, the benefits attached to the concept should also not be linked to those things. The governments of the US has a lot of silly laws about marriage. In Maine, a marriage between second cousins is allowed as long as they attend genetic counseling, regardless whether or not they are interested or capable of having children. In Tennessee, a 14 year old can get married if there is a court order.
Eliminate the government concept of marriage and reduce it to what the government really should be helping with .. contract law. Divorce laws should be applicable to any couple (or more) who have willingly entered into financial interdependence. Child support and visitation laws already apply without a marriage contract.
If someone wants to get married .. go right ahead. Have the ceremony you dreamed about in front of your friends and relatives. Have a religious figure denote you as officially married. Even include signing a legal document stating you want to be recognized as a financially interdependent couple in front of everyone.
Or don't have the ceremony, and just go to the courthouse.
See .. nothing has changed. People can still do whatever they want. The only difference is the government has non-gender, relationship neutral rules surrounding what that is. Rules like living together and being financially interdependent.
And all the hate speech fostered by the gay-marriage and straight marriage activists can finally go away.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Assuming you meant "not serving" or whatever.. yeah why not? How big of an impact do you think it would have?
I don't think anybody would deny that anti-discrimination laws are an affront to personal freedom. The issue is balancing personal freedom against societal good. If we got rid of the laws and suddenly everybody stopped serving blacks, that would be bad for society. There was a time when many businesses would refuse to serve blacks. But today, if more like 4% (hypothetically) of businesses stop serving blacks, then who cares? That's nothing.
It's a lot like anti-terrorism laws. If they are actually stopping terrorist attacks often, then most people are okay with the government invading privacy and stuff like that. If terrorism dies down significantly, then suddenly people will say "Hey wait a minute, why are you reading all of our email, it's not accomplishing anything anymore?"
It's not a matter of impact, it's a matter of right and wrong.
I imagine if your car ran out of gas and the only gas station within a couple hundred miles didn't serve your kind you might have a different view on things.
Maybe to you, but I think it's a matter of impact. Why else is it legal to discriminate against non-protected groups? It's still wrong (to many people), but it's legal because people don't consider it a problem with high impact.
If the only gas station around doesn't take American Express and that's my only card, that would also suck.