Skip to main content

Connor Friedersdorf doesn't get it when it comes to tolerance. We should, of course, be respectful of other views. Even right-winger Charles Krauthammer, in his new book, talks about the need to respect all views and how he doesn't have all the answers. But we can and should be intolerant of intolerance. Silence means consent, and when you refuse to speak out against homophobia, you give your consent to it. That is what Martin Luther King taught us.

Based on my observation of this community over 10 years, I would say that we hold five basic pillars -- equality of opportunity, preserving and expanding the social safety net, non-interventionism in foreign affairs, ending the military industrial complex and corporate welfare and the police state, and the use of science to uphold our positions. We take a strong stance against corruption and it is no accident that FDR and Obama are among the least corrupt administrations in the last 100 years.

A lot of people crossed over and voted for both Obama and Proposition 8 in California. But since then, we, as a party and as a movement, have come to a lot better understanding of what our values are. As long as we do not support equality of opportunity for all, then there are always going to be people who will be second-class citizens. President Obama did not support gay marriage at first, but finally came out in favor of it in 2012 because he came to a better understanding of what we need to stand for. Many of us went along the same journey. But the problem with Brendan Eich was that he never changed from his position even though it was public support for one of the most mean-spirited amendments in American history. Obama opposed Proposition 8, because it ran counter to his vision of a country where we were much more inclusive and much more willing to provide equality of opportunity. So when someone is that public with his support of something that mean-spirited, it creates a serious conflict of interest. How can someone like Eich be objective in deciding who to hire, fire, or promote? And another problem was that his public stances and his company's values were two totally different things.

Now, let's discuss Friedersdorf. First, he argues that opposition to gay marriage and opposition to interracial marriage are not the same thing.

Opposition to interracial marriage was all but synonymous with a belief in the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another. (In fact, it was inextricably tied to a singularly insidious ideology of white supremacy and black subjugation that has done more damage to America and its people than anything else, and that ranks among the most obscene crimes in history.)

Opposition to gay marriage can be rooted in the insidious belief that gays are inferior, but it's also commonly rooted in the much-less-problematic belief that marriage is a procreative institution, not one meant to join couples for love and companionship alone.

The problem with Friedersdorf's argument is that nowhere is that definition of marriage found anywhere in the Constitution. What is found in the Constitution is freedom of thought. Therefore, since this is a pluralistic society, we can have all the disagreements that we want about the nature and institution of marriage. But what is a dealbreaker is when we take those disagreements and use them to make other people second class citizens. Gays can and do have children through procreative means (two women; one has a child through IVF), and they can also adopt; as one common public service ad encouraging adopting says, kids don't care about all your crazy hangups -- all they want is you. Studies show that most children are just as healthy and well-adjusted with gay parents as they are with straight parents.

When we fall into the trap of the right and try to create a homogenized society, then that is when the "mischief of faction" feared by our founders comes in. The only person whose views matter on the role of marriage in our society is the person in the mirror. The only role of the government is to create equality of opportunity for all.

The next question Freidersdorf raises is, are all opponents of gay marriage bigots? This argument implies that we are attacking the person and not the problematic view. The answer I give is, we don't know. That is because we have no insight into a person's state of mind. But what we can do is refuse to respect peoples' actions that show intolerance towards gays. There is a big difference between attacking actions and attacking people. Attacking actions means not giving someone a platform. It means addressing such actions. It means taking a stand on what we believe and why we believe it. And it can mean not doing business with companies that don't share your values.

He continues:

I hope folks who defended Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich's ouster can see why I think they're overstating the similarities between white supremacists and gay-marriage opponents; failing to make important distinctions among the most and least objectionable gay-marriage opponents; and dramatically expanding the norms around stigma, not applying previously established norms to a new case.
But the problem is, there are similarities between white supremacy and homophobia. Both are directed at something that is biological. In other words, you can no more change the color of one's skin than you can change someone's sexual orientation. Exodus International tried it, and it was a catastrophic failure. While Freidersdorf is right that there are important distinctions between certain gay marriage opponents, just like there were between segregationists, the problem is that their policies still promote second-class citizenship for gays, something that should never be acceptable in our school of thought.

Next, he goes on to play the selective outrage card. I can't speak for other people, but I can speak for myself. I have written about drone strikes, deportation of illegal immigrants, discrimination against Muslims, indefinite detention, and other civil liberties issues at one time or another. That argument attacks the person, not the argument.

Finally, I agree with Freidersdorf that engagement and persuasion are normally the best tools. But sometimes, certain people can't be reasoned with on certain issues. You can talk to them until you're blue in the face, but nothing you say can ever change their mind. Recently, George W. Bush, in one of his paintings, depicted his approval of the torture tactics used in our name against so-called "terrorists." Good luck to Freidersdorf in trying to get George W. Bush to change his position on torture.

Originally posted to Stop the Police State! on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 07:54 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Procreative BS is a Lie On Its Face (18+ / 0-)

    since the infirm and elderly are routinely allowed to marry, and since even a cursory glance at human behavior shows a significant procreative rate even outside marriage.

    Of course deniers are bigots, it's well known in history and current events for entire societies to be bigoted whether they knew it or not. The opposition to marriage equality blocks people from exercising the most basic human rights.

    Of course that's bigotry.

    And there's no obligation of the aggrieved parties to be polite, patient or considerate. Their lives are disrupted and on a profoundly time sensitive scale. Individuals deprived of rights can see their options become unrestorable within a matter of a few years or even months, no matter how generous an eventual change in society may be.

    If it's bad tactics to attack the bigot, that's the call of those fighting this issue for their own personal lives, not mine.

    But it's no moral wrong.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 08:08:48 PM PDT

    •  It doesn't matter what the reasoning is (8+ / 0-)

      Bigotry is a belief in the inferiority of a class of people, and a cultural bias against that class of people which leads to discrimination.   If a person supports and works to perpetuate a legal inequity in which a class of people is discriminated against in law, their excuse for doing so doesn't matter.  The effect of their beliefs and actions amounts to bigotry, no matter what they may personally think of their own motivations.

      Brendan Eich is a homophobic bigot, both for supporting Prop. 8 and for failing to atone for that action.  I don't care how many gay friends he may claim, his actions prove the truth of the charge.

      One way social norms are changed is to make outdated attitudes socially unacceptable through strong opprobrium.  Those holding those old attitudes may feel ill-used in that process, but that's too fucking bad.  LGBT folks have been a lot more ill-used historically and contemporaneously.  I have no tears to spare for Brendan Eich.

      We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

      by Dallasdoc on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:50:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or, as one writer put it a little while back, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, anon004, koNko

      liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

      by RockyMtnLib on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 05:28:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why is this on the rec list? n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "American conservatism is still, after all these years, largely driven by claims that liberals are taking away your hard-earned money and giving it to Those People. " Paul Krugman

      by yippee ki yay on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 01:37:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good points, and I agree with most of your diary. (4+ / 0-)

    I haven't read Krauthammer's new book, but will say that his most recent article in fact talks about Eich to say that we now live in a totalitarian society.

    Additionally, 'race' is not a biological fact, it is a  social construct.

    "Trust me... I've been right before." ~ Tea party patriot

    by Calvino Partigiani on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 08:20:08 PM PDT

  •  in addition to the prop 8 campaign (7+ / 0-)

    eich gave money to pat buchanan and ron paul. he's not a bigot, but he sure likes to give bigots his money.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 08:35:55 PM PDT

  •  Another fundamental difference (5+ / 0-)

    between white supremacy and anti-gay views is that religion still holds a privileged place in the arena of discussion, which provides 'cover' for 'traditional marriage' bigotry.

    People feel a bit uneasy to come and say outright that if your religion promotes this type of bigotry, then it's a shitty religion.

  •  I don't buy this (6+ / 0-)
    President Obama did not support gay marriage at first, but finally came out in favor of it in 2012 because he came to a better understanding of what we need to stand for.
    He knew what was right, but staked his position for political purposes, just as he changed that position for the same reason.  I think it is naive- at best- to think that Obama, as a constitutional law professor, did not see the moral and legal failings of his separate, but equal position.  Let's be honest here.
    •  That that kind of jumped out at me, too (0+ / 0-)

      And I'm a seriously intense Obama supporter.  I think he had the right heart, but felt he couldn't endorse marriage equality in 2008.  

      I guess I'm okay with that, seeing as how Lincoln wasn't willing or able to acknowledge that the Civil was about slavery until we were two years into it, and, even then, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" the slaves in the states that were in rebellion, i.e., not a single slave was granted his or her freedom until 1865.

      •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

        It's acceptable for a president to deny and oppose the legal equality of a group of American citizens ...because Lincoln?  
        Are you serious?

        •  No, just pointing out political reality for (0+ / 0-)

          both of them.  FDR and JFK were very weak on Civil Rights because they needed Southern Democrats, who were literally violently opposed to legal equality for blacks, to get elected.  And LBJ admitted that that national Democratic Party being the one largely responsible for Civil Rights legislation would lose the South for a generation.  Turns out now to have been two generations, and it doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.  Oh, and Johnson decided not to run rather than not be re-elected (although the case could be made that was as much about Vietnam as it was about Civil Rights).

          Grown-ups recognize that in this country, you can't be a pure-of-heart firebrand and get elected.  And if you can't get elected, you can't change anything.  And Obama's record on GLBT rights since he was elected is quite good.

          I'd also say that it's not the correct characterization of either Lincoln or Obama's position as "deny[ing] and oppose[ing] the legal equality of a group of American citizens."  In both cases, they did nothing like that.  They were less than fervent champions, but they certainly didn't support what the other side was doing.

      •  Presidential power was limited in the 1860's (0+ / 0-)

        Lincoln could only free black people in the confederate states because of his powers as commander in chief. A similar order for the union would have unconstitutional.

        Lenin Cat says "In soviet Russia Cat chases Dog"

        by DanceHallKing on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 10:20:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  To me, that is even worse... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KathleenM1, dallasdunlap, Samulayo

      it's one thing to truly believe something but it is really despicable to lie about what you believe for personal gain.

  •  I respect Eich's right to have an opinion, (5+ / 0-)

    however little I think of that opinion.

    And I have every right to choose a product he's not associated with.

    This has nothing to do with tolerance, and everything to do with individual market choices.

    Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

    by Bob Love on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 03:58:18 AM PDT

    •  What I object to (5+ / 0-)

      is Eich's  taking concrete real world steps to remove a civil right from California citizens.  He financially supported the (temporarily) successful effort to make marriage a crime for certain people.  

      That to me is a moral crime, and I agree that we have the right not to support him with our market choices.

      The wingnuts have to under stand that we don't give a flying flapjack about his opinions.

  •  In fact, there are two viewpoints in the same (0+ / 0-)

    sex marriage debate. On one side are those who, like myself, think of marriage as a civil institution. Logically, in my view, people who are not able or willing to take part in a heterosexual union should not be excluded from the legal privileges and benefits of marriage. The 14th Amendment, IMHO, requires the legal equality of same sex couples.

    On the other hand, many people - until recently a majority - think of legal marriage as a civil recognition of a religious institution. And, until quite recently, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. A same sex marriage was a mockery of that institution. Legal recognition of same sex marriage was an intolerable government attack on traditional (IOW religious) values.
       Many of those folks were and are fine with civil unions, as long as they aren't called marriages.
       While it might make you feel good to dismiss them as bigots, they do, in fact, subscribe to beliefs and values that are centuries old. They are not necessarily malicious in intent.

       

    •  bah. "Centuries old"=slavery. Big deal (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Tonedevil, StevenWells, KathleenM1, skrekk

      Nice old ladies in The Confederacy were probably not "malicious" either.  Who cares?

      If the end result is bigotry, the perp is a bigot.

    •  "Many of those folks were and are fine with civil (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vacantlook, skrekk, Tonedevil

      unions, as long as they aren't called marriages."

      Not really.  Most of the states that have amendments against marriage equality do not have civil unions, and, in fact, have had legislative efforts to outlaw those as well.

      And this idea that civil marriage is a codification of religious practices is terribly misinformed.  Even setting aside our tradition of separation of church and state, the practical reality is that marriage has always been primarily about the inheritance of property.  People who had no property (serfs, slaves) were not allowed to marry.  Marriage was a civil institution that religion got grafted on top of, not the reverse.

      Now, I know that requires some knowledge of history, rationality and not believing that your religion supersedes everything and everyone else, but I don't think indulging the incorrect narrative of the hyper-religious is the right thing to do in a secular society.  Facts matter.

  •  RationalWiki has my favorite explanation... (6+ / 0-)

    ...of why tolerance of intolerance is a bad thing.

    http://rationalwiki.org/...

    Paradox of Tolerance

    "The paradox of tolerance" refers to the act of being intolerant of intolerance. It is a term generally used by opponents of pluralism to criticize advocates of toleration. The argument goes something like this:

    1. Tolerance means accepting others with differing views/lifestyles/shoe sizes
    2. Some people do not accept others with differing views/lifestyles/shoe sizes
    3. Those people are intolerant
    4. Not accepting intolerant people is itself intolerant
    5. Therefore, tolerance is impossible.
    This argument is total, unmitigated bullshit. Here's why: This assumes that totally uncritical tolerance is desirable. There's a distinction between being tolerant and blind moral relativism, and it is perfectly reasonable to say that it is not desirable to be perfectly tolerant of every single thing. Extremism rarely bodes well for anybody.

    Karl Popper explains it quite well actually:

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.[1]
    •  In the case of LGBT rights, though, intolerance (0+ / 0-)

      cuts both ways.
         Recall that until the 1970s, homosexuality was defined by mental health professionals as "deviant," what would today be called a paraphilia.
         That definition which was, of course, a social definition, with no medical underpinnings, was changed by the APA and other professional organizations. Again. since the definition was a social construct in the first place, the change was also a social construct.
          Since that time, the thrust for social change re LGBT issues has been to leverage the acceptance of gays into an assertion that sexual orientation is a fixed characteristic, like race. And that LGBT folks should be a protected class, just as racial and ethnic minorities are.
          So, from the social construct of being mentally ill to the social construct of the historically oppressed minority.
          The importance of same sex marriage is that it is an assertion and reinforcement of the oppressed minority status.
          The outrage ginned up against the Duck Dynasty guy and against Mr. Eich comes not because they are intolerant, it is because they subscribe to different social constructs. In the case of Mr. Robertson, he viewed homosexual acts as "sins" alongside other sins.
         The concept of sin is also a social construct.
         What is really going on is a drive to insure that only one social construct survives - thus the insistence that people like Eich and Robertson face financial ruin for even saying aloud something that differs from the prevailing narrative.

         

      •  The problem is: (5+ / 0-)

        There were "good" segregationists who didn't have anything against Blacks, but nonetheless, their ideas and policies still result in second class citizens. And Brendan Eich may well be a "good" fundamentalist who has nothing against gays but is just defending the "institution" of marriage. But his ideas and policies still lead to gays being treated as second class citizens. Like when one partner is deceased and the other partner is hit with a $300,000 tax bill out of the blue because they are not considered to be an immediate family member.

        "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

        by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:30:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The argument re the tax advantages of being (0+ / 0-)

          married is a good one - although not being married, I would like to see the tax advantages of marriage repealed.
            But that is not to say that a person should be subject to economic sanctions for pure speech.
             

          •  It's not just about speech. (5+ / 0-)

            It's a conflict of interest. How do people expect people like Eich to be objective in the hiring, firing, or promotion of gays?

            "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

            by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 09:06:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So far, there has been no indication of any (0+ / 0-)

              tendency toward anti-gay workplace discrimination by Mr. Eich.
                 The attacks on him were generated entirely by a small campaign contribution that he made in 2008. At that time, the vast majority of Americans opposed gay marriage - then Senator Obama included. President Clinton, after all, affixed his signature to DOMA. Charlie Crist, likely to be the Dem nominee for Governor of Florida, and who is widely rumored to be gay himself, supported the 2008 Florida constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. (For the record, I voted against it.)
                 Eich's bete noir, the CEO of OkCupid, is also reported to have donated to a "pro-family" anti-gay marriage and anti-woman's rights candidate.
                 The source of the drive to target Eich, among all the people who opposed gay marriage six years ago, is a mystery. But that this witch hunt has been taken up by people who are normally progressive.
                This hurts the progressive cause, folks. There is a positive case to be made for marriage equality. Make it.
                 Punishing individuals for thought crimes males progressives look like fascists.

          •  Economic sanctions are not imposed by private (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rebecca, Tonedevil

            entities upon individual people, they are imposed by one government upon another government.  If you are maintaining there should be no economic consequences for a person's speech, then you are being naive and rather silly.  No one is guaranteed a job, certainly not a high-profile, well-paying job and part of the expectation of maintaining that job is not to violate social norms.  One of the ways to do that in this society is to be prejudiced against others.  Can you be prejudiced, and can you openly express that prejudice?  Of course.  Can you be free to avoid the consequences of that speech -- no.

            "although not being married, I would like to see the tax advantages of marriage repealed."

            Because, well, everyone knows it's all about you.

      •  Bullshit. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, skrekk, Tonedevil

        Spare me your apologetics for bigotry.  

        It's not about "social constructs".  It's about Civil Rights.  

        Conservatives live in the land of ideology and abstracts.  Progressives deal in real-world results.  

        What is going on is that LGBT people are fighting for our Civil Rights.  Mssrs. Eich and Robertson have the right to practice their bigotry--we just don't have to buy their products. We're not trying to pass laws to prevent them from earning a living. Or get married.  Or rent a home.  Or be served by a business.  

        Your false equivalency is breathtacking.

        (That sound you are hearing is a paradigm being shifted at Warp Factor Infinity using no clutch.)

        by homogenius on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 02:33:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Be careful where you draw these lines. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge

    I don't think people should be punished in the work place for their personal opinions.  Now the CEO of a major company is a unique case, but I still think the principle applies.  If your opinions don't affect how you do your job, then you should be allowed to do that job.

    Mr. Eich was made to resign because he made a political contribution to a cause six years ago.  Back then his opinion was the majority opinion in one of our most liberal states. As of this writing, his opinion is still the law of the land in 2/3 of the states.  Unless we're going to build two economies-one progressive and one conservative, we have to work with one another.  And we have to be neighbors, if only because that's the best way to change each other's minds.

    Let's remove this one step.  Suppose he was a Mormon or a Catholic and gave that money to his church?  The church then turned around and spent it on the Prop 8 movement?  Should he be made to resign then?  

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by Spider Stumbled on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 09:41:49 AM PDT

    •  First of all: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, vacantlook, skrekk

      Equality is not a popularity contest. It has to  be applied whether 10% or 90% of the people agree. Eich may be a "nice" defender of "traditional" marriage, but his support of Proposition 8 and the policies it created is/was no less hurtful. It still creates second-class citizens.

      As for working together, would you trust a known skinhead to be objective in evaluating Blacks for hiring, firing, or promotion?

      In answer to your question, I would say the answer is no because all he would have been doing is expressing his religious views. One can be Mormon or Catholic and not be homophobic.

      "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

      by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:41:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi

        should Mozilla check it's employee rolls against everyone that donated to Prop 8?  If Marcy in accounting wrote a $50 check to the same cause, should she be fired?

        I don't have enough information to answer you hypothetical.  What do you mean by "skin head"?

        The Catholic Church and Mormon church both oppose marriage equality, vociferously and directly.  Are you saying that it's okay to be against gay marriage as long as it's based on religion, and not a matter of individual conscience?  I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

        "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

        by Spider Stumbled on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 11:38:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chi, Tonedevil, skrekk

          I don't care what people think, unless they make such a public statement about it like Eich does that there is a serious perception of conflict of interest. If Eich believed what he does and he didn't want to make a public statement about it, he would have been free to donate whatever he wanted to the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church and nobody would have said anything. But he chose to make a public statement about his beliefs with his $1,000 contribution.

          A "skinhead" is someone who believes in white supremacy and who shaves their head off to express that view. Would we be having this discussion if Eich were a skinhead?

          If you make a donation to the Catholic or Mormon church, then people will see you as such; not all Catholics or Mormons follow the party line of the establishment. But if you make a big public donation to Proposition 8, then that tells people you don't believe in equal opportunity for all.

          "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

          by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 11:52:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is a huge difference (0+ / 0-)

            between being a white supremacist and opposing marriage equality.  A white supremacist, by definition, has biases against all other ethnic groups.  And that will affect his ability to treat people equally.  So no, I would not want an avowed racist in a supervisory capacity.

            But some people have (weak) reasons for wanting marriage to be only between one man and one woman.  That may correlate with animus towards gay people, but I think there are a lot of people who have "traditional" views on marriage but who don't hate gay people.  I think there are millions of people that oppose gay marriage but have no issue with gay employees.  

            But let me ask you...why don't you take a donation to the Mormon church to imply support for Proposition 8?  It was well known that they were spending a lot of money in that campaign. Presumably some portion of any donation made to it during that time was going to go to fund Prop 8.  So a millioin dollar donation to the Mormon Church in 2008 would probably have a more harmful effect thant Eich's $1,000 check to the Prop 8 movement.

            "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

            by Spider Stumbled on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 04:25:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What difference... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              homogenius, Rebecca, skrekk

              does it make when someone throws stones at someone whether they hate that person or not? I know people who were harmed by this, like losing the house they had lived in for over 20 years, because their partner died and they hadn't been able to get married.

              This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

              by Tonedevil on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 06:12:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  By your logic (0+ / 0-)

                52% of California voters should not be allowed to work.

                "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

                by Spider Stumbled on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 06:26:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't believe... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  homogenius, anon004, skrekk

                  anything I have said would even remotely result in that. Mr. Eich was promoted to the position of CEO, maybe he could have been effective and maybe he would have been a disaster that's a complete unknown. As CTO he had been able to weather the storms that resulted when his donation was made public. CEO is a different kettle of fish and it quickly became a problem for the company. At most by my logic 52% of California voters would be unable to serve as CEOs of companies that stress their LGBTQ friendliness.

                  This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

                  by Tonedevil on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 06:54:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But (0+ / 0-)

                    you're comparing him to skin heads and saying he caused people to lose their homes. Are you saying there's a glass ceiling for people like that?  Everything but CEO is open?

                    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

                    by Spider Stumbled on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 07:16:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm saying... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      anon004, skrekk

                      there's no controlling authority. It took almost no protest before Mr. Eich resigned. Not every company is that sensitive. I really don't understand what you think could have been done differently in this case.

                      This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

                      by Tonedevil on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:04:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It was a market decision (0+ / 0-)

                        so I guess that's their right.  I just don't like the precedent.  I wouldn't want anyone fired for having an unpopular opinion at my work place.

                        "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

                        by Spider Stumbled on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:11:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  There isn't any precedent here though (0+ / 0-)

                          Eich is hardly the first person to resign or lose his job over some political controversy or public backlash. Martin Bashir, Alec Baldwin, Paula Deen, Bill Maher and Phil Donohue come to mind off the top of my head.

                          If you want CEO's in particular, there's this for example:
                          http://abcnews.go.com/...

                          So if you're worried about setting a precedent, don't be. The precedent was set long ago and has been in place probably since forever.

                •  Eich didn't have to resign. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  skrekk, Tonedevil

                  That's the thing that the "gays got him fired" shouters keep ignoring. Eich didn't have to resign. He could have kept going as CEO. Some people would continue to look to other companies from software. But he chose to resign because the company was losing users. We're not required to use Mozilla.

              •  The difference is (0+ / 0-)

                that animosity towards people might affect his ability to supervise them in the work place.

                "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

                by Spider Stumbled on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 06:27:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  A difference to you, perhaps. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              skrekk, Tonedevil

              But to me, as the target of the governmental discrimination for which Eich advocated, the bigotry against me feels the exact same as a white supremacist's bigotry against non-whites.

              Just because someone doesn't call me a faggot doesn't mean that they don't hate gay people. Wanting the government to discriminate against me most definitely demonstrates a hatred toward gay people. One can cloak one's hatred in "tradition" all one wants to, but it's still hatred.

            •  I'm in a mixed-race marriage and have a gay kid (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              who can't marry because she lives in a bigoted state with anti-gay Jim Crow laws.

              I see no difference at all between white-supremacy and hetero-supremacy.

  •  No selective outrage? (0+ / 0-)
    Next, he goes on to play the selective outrage card. I can't speak for other people, but I can speak for myself. I have written about drone strikes, deportation of illegal immigrants, discrimination against Muslims, indefinite detention, and other civil liberties issues at one time or another. That argument attacks the person, not the argument.
    Oh, there was selective outrage, all right...

    The Los Angeles Times' Prop 8 donor database lists 33, 626 individuals and organizations that donated at least $100 in support of Proposition 8.

    Take a look at this Slate article, which shows just how many major corporations are connected to individuals who donated in support of Prop 8.

    Several commentators here at Daily Kos were quite explicit in stating that it was Eich's elevation to CEO that made the protest necessary. (There was no general public outcry while Eich was CTO and a member of the Board of Directors.)

    How many campaigns are calling for those thousands of other donors to lose their jobs, or even just those in high-ranking positions other than CEO? Beyond that lone article from Slate, I'm hearing crickets.

    From the outside looking in, the overall message seems to be, "we don't care if you're a as long as you're a low-ranking or relatively unknown peon - you just can't be a CEO."

    I'd call that selective outrage.

    The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

    by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:13:24 AM PDT

    •  Pick your battles (7+ / 0-)

      Brendan Eich was named the head of a company that touts diversity as one of its core values. He had ample opportunity to apologize for his donation, or at the very least acknowledge the harm that Prop 8 did to the gay community. He did neither. He paid the price for it in a country where it no longer pays to be anti-gay. It's as simple as that.

      Of course there's not a campaign to fire 33,626 people. Was the campaign selective? Yes. Again, pick your battles. Of course a low-level employee is not going to garner the attention that a CEO of a company garners. Of course a grassroots campaign is not going to form to remove a CTO or a member of the Board of Directors that nobody has heard of. Do you really expect as much? Again...battles have to be picked.

      This was an organic grassroots movement, the only major "leader" being OK Cupid. With whom is your beef? The market itself?

      I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

      by Chrislove on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:34:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, I get it... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but "pick your battles" and "no selective outrage" are mutually exclusive, are they not?

        You don't get to claim both.

        The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

        by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 11:21:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, homogenius, vacantlook, Rebecca

          Again, big difference between low-level employees and CEOs of companies. There is no reason to be outraged that people with bigoted opinions are employed. There is a reason to be outraged that a bigot is employed as the head of a company that claims diversity as a core value. Big difference, and no, it's not "selective outrage" to be upset over Eich and not a random employee nobody has heard of or ever will hear of.

          I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

          by Chrislove on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 12:16:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, so... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dallasdunlap

            ...if one of these low-level people who isn't worth "picking the battle" gets promoted to a highly visible position, say, 5 years from now, we'll go through all of this selective outrage again unless the person in question denounces themselves in public?

            Seriously, what's the staute of limitations on this stuff?

            Oh, and about this:

            There is a reason to be outraged that a bigot is employed as the head of a company that claims diversity as a core value.
            Change "employed as the head of" to "the founder of"...oh, wait, no one cared about that. (Oh, and "never heard of" is completely relative; while I haven't met Eich, I've known his name and his work for years.)

            That's one of the things that bothered me most about this mess. There was not a SINGLE accusation that Eich had EVER taken a workplace action or made a workplace decision rooted in intolerance, and he was on the leadership team of a company that was explicitly welcoming (and generous) to LGBTQ employees. In other words, he never brought his personal opinions on this topic into the workplace--and isn't that what we say we WANT?--but was pilloried anyway.

            The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

            by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 01:04:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Um, it depends (7+ / 0-)
              if one of these low-level people who isn't worth "picking the battle" gets promoted to a highly visible position, say, 5 years from now, we'll go through all of this selective outrage again unless the person in question denounces themselves in public?
              If that person is promoted to CEO of Chick-fil-A, I doubt there'd be much of a reason for outrage, because it's Chick-fil-A. but Mozilla? Any other company that touts diversity, and the person's bigotry comes to light? You betcha. This is what the 21st century looks like, so you should probably get used to it. The landscape has changed, and the market will react to blatant bigotry.
              There was not a SINGLE accusation that Eich had EVER taken a workplace action or made a workplace decision rooted in intolerance
              So? He donated $1,000 to enshrine bigotry into law. That indicates that he has anti-gay animus. And beyond that, there's the symbolism of the whole thing. Sorry, but Mozilla and other diversity-embracing companies can't get away with selecting a bigot to be the CEO.

              As others have said, this comment thread wouldn't exist if this guy was an open white supremacist. Wouldn't. Exist.

              I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

              by Chrislove on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 01:13:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Nevertheless, your position is that there is some (0+ / 0-)

            level of corporate employment at which a person can be denied employment because of speech. Or, in this case, a small campaign contribution.  (and yes, $1000 is a small contribution to someone like Eich.)
               Keep in mind, the contribution was in support of a cause that was backed by major religions and was supported by the majority of voters in California and by voters in other states that had similar measures on the ballot.
               How much easier would it be to get LGBT folks or progressives in general fired from their jobs?
               If you think the campaign against Eich was okay, you don't have a leg to stand on when you protest the firing of others for their religious, moral, or political beliefs.

            •  First of all: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rebecca, Tonedevil

              It's not any more acceptable to advocate for homophobia than it is/was to advocate for segregation, no matter how "nicely" you try to frame it. And it doesn't matter if a majority of people supported it. Creating equal opportunity for all is not a popularity contest.

              Secondly of all, most of us vote in the privacy of the voting booth, which means that you're talking about a situation that simply isn't going to happen. It's when you go public with your support of homophobia and you're in the position to hire or fire people that it becomes an issue, just like it would be for being a skinhead or posting a Nazi symbol on your Facebook profile. And even if Eich kept his politics out of the workplace, there is still the perception of conflict of interest. I know that's not fair, I know that wasn't the way it was in the past, but that's a fact of life.

              And there is no equivalence to LGBT folks getting fired from their jobs to what Eich did. Being gay is biological which what Eich did was behavioral. Big difference.

              "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

              by Eternal Hope on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 09:53:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  WOW (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              This certainly sounds familiar:

              Keep in mind, the contribution was in support of a cause that was backed by major religions and was supported by the majority of voters in California and by voters in other states that had similar measures on the ballot.
              Again, if this was about an open white supremacist, we would Not. Be. Having. This. Conversation. Period.

              I'll ask you again...with whom is your beef? The market itself? The customers who boycotted Mozilla? OK Cupid? Surely it's not with the LGBT movement, because No. LGBT. Organization. Backed. Eich's. Removal.

              Oh, and also:

              If you think the campaign against Eich was okay, you don't have a leg to stand on when you protest the firing of others for their religious, moral, or political beliefs.
              Just watch. Welcome to the 21st century. I doubt Eich was the last anti-gay bigot to go down in flames. Get used to it. In the meantime, enjoy your false equivalence.

              I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

              by Chrislove on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 10:28:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  A person "can be denied employment because of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              speech" at any level at any time, and always could be. By using the passive voice, your description hides agency and any specific actions by anyone, and thereby allows any scenario that leads in some way or other to someone being denied employment in some way or other that is in some way related to speech. Some such scenarios are "ok" and some are not.

              And you are arguing as if anyone's talking about setting up some ruling authority to set rules for this. There aren't any such rules or authority. Each individual decides if they want to boycott a product or company, and other people choose to make a similar choice, or not. It's not determined by any kind of authority, but by many independent actors choosing to say what they wish and spend or not spend their money on what they wish. Each individual can make these choices differently. If enough people choose to stop spending their money at a particular business because of a particular employee, whether because of something that employee said or did, or because of any other reason, that person might wind up out of a job because that employee might become a liability to the business. And there is nothing necessarily wrong in that. It has always been such. People can and will disagree about different such scenarios.

              How much easier would it be to get LGBT folks or progressives in general fired from their jobs?
              Since his position is already the norm, and has been in basically every society since the dawn of time, it would be no easier, and no harder.
              If you think the campaign against Eich was okay, you don't have a leg to stand on when you protest the firing of others for their religious, moral, or political beliefs.
              Doesn't follow at all. If I was protesting someone being fired it would not be for the reasons you're using, and which I and others here are refuting.
    •  Maybe they didn't choose to. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil

      Maybe they were doing other things then. Maybe they heard about the CEO appointment and got singularly outraged. Can't people do that?

      "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." -- JC, Matthew 6:24

      by Chi on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 01:55:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, that's an interesting question... (0+ / 0-)

        If one goes digging through the Web, you'll find that Eich's donation had already gone through a rather open discussion within the Mozilla community back in 2012.

        Public statements were made, more than a few Mozilla employees spoke up--including statements of support for Eich from several LGBTQ Mozillans--and the general consensus (as I read it) seemed to be "Ok, that's disappointing, but let's get back to what we're all working on."  That's completely in keeping with the Mozilla principle that this stuff doesn't come into the workplace; in fact, several of the folks speaking on Eich's behalf made that specific point. So, the folks closest to the matter--Mozilla employees and the Mozilla community--had hashed it out back them and were going forward. There were no calls for Eich's resignation or demotion, and he continued as both CTO and Director.

        The general public didn't really get involved until OKCupid made their statement. The previous discussion was forgotten and ignored, the controversy erupted, and you know the rest. Even with his promotion to CEO, there were LGBTQ Mozillans speaking out in support of Eich.

        Now, on the outside looking in, who should we pay attention to: the folks at Mozilla, both straight and LGBTQ, who are closest to the guy, have worked with him for years, and know him best, or all the people who don't know him from Adam, have never worked with him, and are reacting only to the singular fact of his six-year-old donation?

        The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

        by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 04:47:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What are you trying... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anon004

          to achieve? Mr. Eich wasn't fired in the tradition of persons who work at that level in a company he resigned. I don't know what went into that decision Mr. Eich said he was stepping down because he couldn't be an effective leader. I would suggest that once the publicity got to the level it did his remaining would have been a severe distraction for the company.
          Who do you think did some terrible thing to Mr. Eich and what do you want them to do differently in the future? His appointment was offensive to some people and they made their feelings public and Mr. Eich and Mozilla came to a decision that this wasn't going to work. Who did something wrong here?

          This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

          by Tonedevil on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 06:31:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Truthfully? Trying to figure out who to listen to. (0+ / 0-)

            Hey, I'm an old straight white guy. I support equality, but I'm fully aware of the fact that, due to my privilege, I'm never going to truly understand what the unprivileged--whether that lack of privilege stems from gender, sex, race, orientation, or whatever--experienced (or continue to experience) on a daily basis.

            Having said that, read what I wrote again:

            Now, on the outside looking in, who should we pay attention to: the folks at Mozilla, both straight and LGBTQ, who are closest to the guy, have worked with him for years, and know him best, or all the people who don't know him from Adam, have never worked with him, and are reacting only to the singular fact of his six-year-old donation?
            Sure, almost everyone here jumped on the "boycott"/"he should be fired" bandwagon, but I'm reading eloquent words like these, from a gay Mozilla employee:
            I have friends that hold political opinions that are antithetical to me – I do not exclude them from my life, I embrace my friends. I neither support nor understand their beliefs, but doesn't mean that I throw them away. I cannot condone holding a grudge in perpetuity. To do so would be leaving a wake of enemies behind me.   Instead, I could have them as allies beside me where we do agree.

            I do not agree with Brendan's support of Prop 8. However, that particular battle is one that Brendan lost. It's over. I don't know if his opinions have changed nor do I feel that I need to know. Technically, Brendan is a good choice for CEO: we need to be a technically driven company.

            Mozilla has a vocal LBGT community. Brendan could not derail us if he wanted to. I don't think that he does want to because he's focused on the real mission: the free Web. He's working with us, I, for one, am willing to set aside my trepidation and work with him, too.

            I say to the larger community calling for the ouster of Brendan Eich, “please don't succumb to the knee jerk reaction.” I did at first, but with some thought, I realize that we need to focus on the future not exact retribution for the past.

            (Sadly, the author of those words received death threats after publishing them...)

            So, as I said, I'm on the outside looking in, trying to figure out who to listen to...

            I'm sorry if I've seemed contentious or antagonistic. I'm not trying to be a jerk - I'm trying to figure things out, but I'm left comparing LGBT voices like the "don't succumb to the knee-jerk reaction" fellow quoted above to the more strident "he has to go" voices here and elsewhere.

            I'll shut up now. We've gone back and forth on a few points in various diaries on this topic; I do appreciate your comments - thank you.

            The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

            by wesmorgan1 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:03:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I really don't want you to shut up... (0+ / 0-)

              you and I face the same impediment, I too am an old straight white guy. I don't know how we truly have a legitimate voice in something like this. For my part, I am actually anti-capitalist so I find the CEO thing sick and sad. That said, if you are playing by those rules his statement on leaving indicating he could not be an effective leader is accurate and what the game demands.

              This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

              by Tonedevil on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:16:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  One thing I would keep in mind here (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              is that, in essence, Eich didn't not suffer consequences for his contribution in 2008.  He suffered consequences because he wouldn't repudiate that contribution in 2014.  Even George Wallace admitted he was wrong about segregation.

        •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

          The Wall Street Journal reported on the resignation of 3 Mozilla Board Directors upon Eich's appointment and various news organizations reported on Mozilla employee protests and call for a boycott BEFORE OK Cupid got in on the act.

          Suggest you check your facts and timeline.

          Public statements were made, more than a few Mozilla employees spoke up--including statements of support for Eich from several LGBTQ Mozillans--and the general consensus (as I read it) seemed to be "Ok, that's disappointing, but let's get back to what we're all working on."  That's completely in keeping with the Mozilla principle that this stuff doesn't come into the workplace; in fact, several of the folks speaking on Eich's behalf made that specific point. So, the folks closest to the matter--Mozilla employees and the Mozilla community--had hashed it out back them and were going forward. There were no calls for Eich's resignation or demotion, and he continued as both CTO and Director.
          What you failed to mention is the Board resignations and employee protests, so I'm happy to help you with that.

          No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

          by koNko on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 07:31:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was referring to the 2012 discussion... (0+ / 0-)

            ...not the discussion after Eich's selection as CEO.

            As I stated to open the comment (emphasis added):

            If one goes digging through the Web, you'll find that Eich's donation had already gone through a rather open discussion within the Mozilla community back in 2012.
            and as I stated to close the paragraph you quoted (emphasis added):
            So, the folks closest to the matter--Mozilla employees and the Mozilla community--had hashed it out back them [sic] and were going forward. There were no calls for Eich's resignation or demotion, and he continued as both CTO and Director.
            I thought it quite clear that I was referring to the events of 2012.
            What you failed to mention is the Board resignations and employee protests, so I'm happy to help you with that.
            Obviously, a discussion of events from 2012 would not include events from 2014, so I'm happy to help you with that.

            As far as the board members are concerned, you've provided a perfect example of selective citation. We've had dozens of commentators who said "Yeah, 3 board members resigned" or "the WSJ reported that board members quit" without providing any details. The original WSJ article of 3/28 reported:

            The three board members who resigned sought a CEO from outside Mozilla with experience in the mobile industry who could help expand the organization’s Firefox OS mobile-operating system and balance the skills of co-founders Eich and Baker, the people familiar with the situation said.
            That's a perfectly reasonable, logical explanation for their departure--in fact, it's a classic example of a corporate power struggle--but it doesn't support the suggestion that they resigned because of Eich's donation.

            As far as your assertion that this was big news before OKCupid inserted itself into the mix, I find it rather instructive that there was NO mention of this controversy here at Daily Kos (no diaries, anyway) until OKCupid's landing page went public. We have, in my opinion, one of the most ear-to-the-ground communities to be found online--I routinely read about events/issues at DK before they hit the major media--and a healthy chunk of folks active in the tech industry and open-source movement, but no one saw fit to write a diary about this until OKCupid's action?

            Yes, there was news coverage between 3/28 (first mentions by WSJ, MSNBC, TechCrunch, The Independent) and 3/31 (OKCupid's landing page), but it seems fairly clear that the latter was a major goad to action for many.

            The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

            by wesmorgan1 on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 10:18:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Um... (6+ / 0-)
    the much-less-problematic belief that marriage is a procreative institution, not one meant to join couples for love and companionship alone.
    Much less problematic? Really? Bigots would really love to have us believe their anti-marriage equality views aren't rooted in a hatred for gay people, and they just hate it when people see through their BS. "Reasonable people can disagree," they say. Well, no...not on this issue. Sorry, no room for disagreement on equality under the law. And yes, of course it's bigotry.

    Thanks for the thoughtful diary, Eternal Hope.

    I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public.

    by Chrislove on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:23:00 AM PDT

    •  Also, what about m/f couples who don't want to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, Chrislove, anon004

      have children, ever?  Should they be denied the right to marry?  

      Yeah, yeah, adoption, infertility, older couples, but even on the left too many people seem afraid to admit that some people don't want to have kids, ever, and that's ok.

      It's not as visible a cultural struggle, because nobody requires opposite-sex couples to certify that they're by golly gonna try to procreate to get a marriage license.  But at the same time, any married (or committed) couple is a family, or a subset of a larger family (of origin or chosen).

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 07:38:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think people who were and who still are (0+ / 0-)

    opposed to gay marriage are necessarily bigots. Many, many, many people -- a vast majority of people in the US, only a few years ago were opposed and have since changed their viewpoint on marriage equality. Part of it is, I think, the thousands of years of tradition around marriage. People like tradition; tradition is a comfort zone. It takes a leap sometimes to let go of what has been deeply taught and deeply ingrained into our consciousness. I'm sure many here on DKos were, at some point, opposed or uncomfortable to the change in the perception of marriage. But look what happened! Once people got over the "shock to the system" of the profound social and cultural change, they easily got behind the idea of gay marriage. The floodgates opened. Minds are rapidly evolving on this.

    Therefore, I hate the way the word "bigot" is casually tossed around regarding this issue. And so yes, I think a little tolerance is acceptable during this transition.

    Peter Griffiin a few weeks back on Family Guy said something about getting upset over people who haven't come around to gay marriage after things were one way for 10,000 years and then changed in the last 5 minutes.

    •  But the problem is: (5+ / 0-)

      Eich hasn't changed and won't change. It doesn't matter how "nice" his views happen to be. If they still create second-class citizens, then we should not tolerate the views under any circumstances. As for him being a bigot, only he knows that. We're attacking institutions and beliefs that create second-class citizens, not people.

      "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

      by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 11:15:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  When a person wants... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, Tonedevil

      ...the government to discriminate against me because I'm gay, then yes, that person is a bigot. If that person once thought that but no longer does, then that person, if they're called out on their previous thoughts, has a responsibility to state a change in their opinion. If they don't, then it is reasonable to assume that they're still a bigot.

      Tradition is an easy excuse for bigotry. It doesn't matter what marriage used to be like in terms of what I should be allowed to do today. I don't care if someone dearly wishes they had a time machine so they could live in years gone by so as to avoid the reality that it is bigotry to prevent me from marrying someone because we're both of the same sex.

      I hate how people want to ignore bigotry because they secretly think that particular form of bigotry is acceptable.

  •  Wow, the RWers sure love their Free Market - (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stevemb, Chi, Tonedevil, Eternal Hope, anon004

    - until it doesn't let them have their own way. Then it's the moral equivalent of the Bataan Death March and the encroachment of Liberal Groupthink (which they know because their RW-monopolized nonstop hate radio shows repeatedly tell them all day).

    Honestly, it's like watching a spoiled three-year-old, getting 4 pieces of candy instead of 5, throw himself on the ground and scream till he vomits because You Never Give Me Anything I Hate You!!!!!

    Thank God, the Bob Fosse Kid is here! - Colin Mochrie

    by gardnerhill on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 12:16:34 PM PDT

    •  The term "free market" refers to a market (0+ / 0-)

      operating with a minimum of government intervention.
         Organized boycotts aimed at punishing a political viewpoint have nothing to do with a free market.
         You can argue consumer freedom or freedom of association, but the "free market" argument re Eich is bullshit.

      •  The bullshit is yours. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, Glenn45

        People are allowed to not use Mozilla for whatever reason they want, even if that reason is participation in an "organized boycott."

        By the way, Rush Limbaugh appreciates your support in his face of those companies who're abandoning advertising on his show. Those companies should know that the free market requires that they advertise on Rush's program.

      •  Entirely wrong. This started.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glenn45, Tonedevil

        with Mozilla customers choosing to stop using/buying the Mozilla product. That is a basic market relationship.

        Boycotts of a seller by buyers is pretty fundamental in a free market. And it makes no difference whatsoever if such boycotts are "organized" or not, or what the "aim" of the boycotters happens to be.

        In a free market, customers boycott a product any time they want, for any reason they want, and with any amount of "organization" they want.

        The only bullshit here is your attempt to deny something so obvious.

  •  The problems with your logic (0+ / 0-)

    on this is that who gets to decide when the day starts that "you should have changed your mind"? It wasn't 2008 obviously, so when was it? The day Obama did? The day a majority of californians might? The day you did? See? Plus we have the CEO of OKCupid 9which began the move to ouster Eich) contributing to an anti gay candidate.S why is he not being removed? BTW when did Hillary shift her position?

    Additionally opposing gay marriage is, in and of itself, not necessarily an anti gay position. It can be of course, but it can also be respecting a tradition, recognized for thousands of years, as a social and religious contract among opposite sex couples. Finally, one's private views on public policies should not lend them to being expelled by boycotts when their private views have no bearing on their work- either as an employee or as a boss. I agree that there is a line where tolerating intolerance is not acceptable. I am just not comfortable that that was the case in this situation.

    •  Simple (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, homogenius, vacantlook
      who gets to decide when the day starts that "you should have changed your mind"? It wasn't 2008 obviously, so when was it?
      If you're an anti-gay bigot, then every day is the day that you should have changed your mind.

      And clearly, being an anti-gay bigot does have bearing on the work of a CEO at Mozilla, considering the responses of organizations like OKCupid.

      •  Let me ask (0+ / 0-)

        Was Obama an anti gay bigot when he opposed ay marriage?

        What did Eich actually do at Mozilla that was anti gay?

        •  Obama depends. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          homogenius

          If he actually opposed gay marriage like he claimed, then yes he was. If it was a statement to provide political cover, then no.

          What did Eich do? As CEO? Nothing, he resigned.

          What could he have done as CEO? Besides ruin Mozilla's brand? Plenty.

          The biggest difference between Obama and Eich, however, was that one of those days in the intervening period was the day that Obama changed his mind. Therefore, we can talk about Obama's bigotry in the past tense, and Eich's in the present.

          •  Again (0+ / 0-)

            You do not know:

            "If it was a statement to provide political cover, then no."

            AND:

            "was the day that Obama changed his mind. "

            What makes that the magic day? Was Obama a raging bigot the day before and did you vote for him?

            See this isn't binary at all.

            •  I already covered what I didn't know. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              Thus the 'If...then...' clause.

              What makes that the magic day? It's the day he changed from being an anti-gay bigot to not, at least on that particular topic. What's so hard to understand about it? A day that hasn't yet happened for Eich.

              It is binary.

              I'm seriously confused. In once case you have someone who stopped being a bigot, in the other case you have someone who still is a bigot.

              And somehow you're trying to equate the two.

              It's pretty weird.

          •  So Obama is either a bigot or a liar. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dallasdunlap

            Got it.

      •  You realize that the CEO of OKCupid (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dallasdunlap

        donated to an anti gay candidate right? Why does he get a pass?

        •  I don't see where... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ozy

          Ozy is making any claim that the CEO of OKCupid is deserving of a pass. You might as well be asking why does a tree fall on one person and not another.

          This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

          by Tonedevil on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 03:59:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's already been covered (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, homogenius, vacantlook

          but contrast OKCupid's apology:

          http://www.advocate.com/...

          with Eich's apology:

          HTTP://NOSUCHTHING

          •  An apology AFTER he got caught (0+ / 0-)

            isn't really to be taken that seriously, especially when he went after Eich. Pot meet kettle.

            •  Two things. (7+ / 0-)

              Donating to a politician that may support many positions you like, and happens to also be against gay marriage is pretty different than specifically donating to Prop 8.

              Second. Eich got 'caught' and still hasn't apologized or recanted.

              Just what does that tell you? Cause it tells me a hell of a lot.

              So no, once again you're trying a bullshit false equivalence.

              Why don't you find another CEO who donated to Prop 8, and use them for comparison? Like the Chick-Fil-A guy...why not use him for comparison?

              I'll be happy to call him a bigot too.

            •  One question. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              Why are you so invested in defending Eich.

              What specifically about his character do you think is so compelling to warrant your defense?

              •  I am not into defending Eich (0+ / 0-)

                but rather civil discourse and liberty. I am not a know it all and am torn on questions such as this. I disagree with Eich's position but do not think he should be driven from his position for his private beliefs.

                it is just so censorious and intolerant to me.  I always try to put myself on the other side of the issue to see how it plays.

                I am not 'trying" anything, and please, you can save the vulgarities for others. I just think people are entitled to their private beliefs in the main. Obviously you disagree with that. That is fine. But remember that can cut many ways.

                •  I don't understand at all. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vacantlook, Tonedevil, aimeehs

                  Whose liberty are you defending, Eich's, or the people who exercised their civil discourse and freedom to object?

                  OKCupid was not 'uncivil' when they suggested that people might want to use another browser, that was a perfect example of free exercise of completely civil behavior.

                  I am not 'trying" anything, and please, you can save the vulgarities for others.
                  What vulgarities are you referring to? The word 'bullshit'? Seriously?
                  I just think people are entitled to their private beliefs in the main. Obviously you disagree with that.
                  Arrrgh, I can't believe this is STILL being trotted out.

                  Of COURSE he is entitled to his private beliefs, HOWEVER:

                  1) we are not talking just about beliefs, but about his ACTIONS directly targeting the happiness and civil rights of gay people

                  and

                  2) Just as he is entitled to his beliefs, others are entitled to theirs, and that includes the belief that companies like Mozilla who appoint bigots to their leadership position should be held accountable.

                  So no, I don't 'disagree' with your statement, I merely 'disagree' that it is at all an accurate portrayal of this situation.

                  That is fine. But remember that can cut many ways.
                  What, you mean that gays might be discriminated against in the work place?

                  Say it ain't so...

                  •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                    His "public" act of donating money to a campaign that would codify the very law that Bill Clinton signed. We can assume that you do not think Clinton was worthy of a movement to deny him his various posts? When did Hillary change her mind and why wasn't she considered anti gay beforehand? My point is not what he gave money to- or did or did not endorse - but who gets to make the call on the precise moment this beliefs cross a line. It all seems so very subjective and if I dare say, politically convenient to include some and exclude others when defending those types of things. But we disagree.

                    •  And Bill Clinton and everyone else... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tonedevil

                      ...that supported governmental discriminate against gay people were bigoted to do so.

                      Just because Eich's resignation has somehow spurred a large number of liberals on this website to demand we accept homophobia out of not wanting to offend people who identify as liberal but have homophobic positions in the past (or even currently) is not a valid reason to ignore homophobia.

                      •  I never said it was (0+ / 0-)

                        I said that defining things like "anti gay" and homophobia are difficult and even more problematic is the demarcation of when one's views should have changed on these matters. That is all over the map as I have indicated. The more zealous seem to know who are bigots, who were bigots but have properly made amends and the correct time, and who were bigots and have not properly made amends. But there is no consistency in their rulings.  

                        •  ? Where is the inconsistency? (0+ / 0-)

                          Please point it out.

                          Are you going to be arguing the same line 10 years from now? Or will that have been 'long enough' in your mind that people who are still anti-gay marriage are now bigots.

                          Or do we have to wait 20 years? Or 50 years?

                          Just because you can't seem to wrap your head around a demarcation doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly bedeviled.

                          You can talk about the past, or you can talk about the future.

                          But the most important is the present. Are any of those people you listed still against gay marriage? No. Is Eich? Yes.

                          Don't know why you find this so complicated.

                •  His beliefs ceased to be private (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vacantlook, Tonedevil

                  when he made that donation.  At that point, it wasn't his beliefs but his activities.  And those activities weren't his belonging to church that refuses to marry gay couples.  That activity involved using the legal system to deny others their rights.  As I said, hardly a "private" activity.

                    •  I've read the whole thread and (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tonedevil

                      "see above" doesn't address my comments.

                      •  My point (0+ / 0-)

                        is that a majority of California voters used the legal system to do the same thing. Indeed 60% of Microsoft employees did- why not a call to boycott MS products and services?  Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law . Reid, Biden, Schumer, and a host of proper Democrats voted for that legislation. They used the legal system to do exactly what Prop 8 was doing. Why aren't they considered anti gay bigots as well? Indeed Eich's position on marriage was like Obama's.

                        When people start to judge who is moral and who isn't on such a complicated, personal, socially shifting matter I get uncomfortable. I'd rather tolerate dissent than squelch it.

                        •  "My point (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Tonedevil

                          is that a majority of California voters used the legal system to do the same thing. Indeed 60% of Microsoft employees did- why not a call to boycott MS products and services?"

                          I had no idea the State of California asked people what company they worked for before allowing them into the voting booth.  They don't do that here in New York.   In fact, they don't even ask if you are employed or not, let alone what specific company you work for.  I'm beginning to understand why you are so paranoid about this issue.  In nay case don't most of Microsoft's employees in the US work in Washington State?  Memory serves, they voted in favor of marriage equality.

                          Obama never sent a check to the Prop 8 backers, and he said he opposed a constitutional amendment that limited rights.  Hardly the same position as Eich.

                          All those other good Democrats that you mentioned have since renounced what they said and did.  Mr. Eich didn't.

                          The  matter is neither complicated nor personal.  The government denying rights to some while granting it to others is both most definitely a public matter and pretty simple to understand.

                          •  It isn't that simple (0+ / 0-)

                            Polls show a growing number of Americans support gay marriage but that is only at about 50%. And that shift to a plus has even very rapid. My point is that if the shift in thinking while welcome, is quite recent and I don't  think it is fair to say "on this day all must be evolved". Five years? Three years? Hard and fast social beliefs change with their own speed. Not according to the dictate of a few.

                            Politicians change their positions in response to votes 99% of the time. So I really do not count their sudden change of heart. Sorry. I just do not trust them that much.

                            I am not paranoid just troubled, it just seems that what he "thought" (and yes I realize he donated money- to support his thoughts) made him a target rather than how he behaved in any fashion.

                            BTW it was Intel not MS (my bad)

                            We shall disagree.

                          •  I don't think it is fair to say ;on this day all (0+ / 0-)

                            must be evolved'. Five years? Three years? Hard and fast social beliefs change with their own speed. Not according to the dictate of a few."

                            One, they don't have to evolve, ever,  They just don't get to impose their lack of evolution on everyone else.  Again, this isn't what they practice in their homes or what they believe in their churches.  This is their imposing that on others who don't believe that way.  That's what the abortion debate is all about as well -- your religious beliefs in this society stop at the tip of your nose, and you are not entitled to impose them on my conscience.

                            Oh, and the genuine few who dictated this were the board members of Mozilla.

                            "Politicians change their positions in response to votes 99% of the time. So I really do not count their sudden change of heart. Sorry. I just do not trust them that much."

                            You mean that you get elected because your polices are approved of by the majority? Um, I think that's called a democratic republic, right?

                            "I am not paranoid just troubled, it just seems that what he 'thought' (and yes I realize he donated money- to support his thoughts) made him a target rather than how he behaved in any fashion."

                            Again, the act of donating money took it beyond a thought and made it an action, and also made it a public act, not a private one.

                            And I'm curious why there is a concentration of anti-gay bigotry at Intel.  Very odd.  

                          •  Actually you have good points except (0+ / 0-)

                            You are right people should not dictate their views on others- no matter their basis- religious or otherwise. But I actually get the traditional aspect of this argument, While I don't necessarily agree i do understand where they are coming from. I know lots of fair minded, tolerant, genuinely nice people who are uneasy about the issue. It isn't just that simple.

                            As for the "few". A comparative "few" led by OKCupid campaigned to get Mozilla to dump Eich. The boycott worked.

                            As for abortion, there are quite a few, me among them, that regard science (viability of life) as the determining factor rather than religious teaching when life begins.

                          •  "Actually you have good points (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            except people should not dictate their views on others- no matter their basis- religious or otherwise."

                            I'm not sure what the "except" means here.  You seen to be agreeing and making an exception while continuing to agree with me.

                            All public policy is dictating someone's views.  The issue becomes whether or not those views have a basis in a public policy goal or are based solely on religious or other irrational grounds (i.e., prejudice).

                            "But I actually get the traditional aspect of this argument, While I don't necessarily agree i do understand where they are coming from. I know lots of fair minded, tolerant, genuinely nice people who are uneasy about the issue. It isn't just that simple."

                            I'm pretty sure there were some nice, upstanding people who were in favor of segregation as well.  Especially when you throw in the "traditional" argument.  Race-based subjugation was a "tradition" in this country for 350 years.  Otherwise nice people can be wrong or unaware of the impact of what they believe.  And people who think that some people should have Constitutional rights and others shouldn't aren't really what I would call "fair minded."

                            Oh, as as afar as "tradition" is concerned, the idea of marriage as a monogamous linkage between two people based upon self-selection and love with both being equal partners is about 40 years old in this society, and still doesn't exist in many others.  When people use the phrase "traditional marriage" they honestly have no idea of the changes to marriage over the centuries, nor the variations across cultures.  History and experience are not kind to their view that marriage is immutable and unchanging.  

                          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                            "marriage as a monogamous linkage between two people based upon self-selection and love with both being equal partners is about 40 years old in this society, and still doesn't exist in many others."

                            Huh? Not sure I follow what you mean there.

                            I suspect you know full well that there is difference between racial segregation and denying people constitutional right based on their skin color and some people's uneasiness with redefining a social institution (but not blankly denying constitutional right) like marriage.  

                            Again, most prominent Democrats had the religious based view that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman at that time. I do not think The Clintons or Obama et. al, were horrid bigots for holding that opinion.

                          •  Racial Segregation... (0+ / 0-)

                            and segregation based on sexual orientation is the same, or at least equivalent. Denying marriage rights based on either is also the same degree of wrong. Was someone who was a proponent of anti-miscegenation laws laws a bigot? How about if they still hold those views?

                            This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

                            by Tonedevil on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 01:39:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

                            They are. But that is an apples and marbles comparison.

                            We were/are not talking about segregation, but rather the definition of marriage. Not where one can eat, work, go to school, live, access to the legal system, protection from the courts, or civil unions. And again, I agree with the ruling on Prop 8 (even though I am not a California resident) but I do not think that everyone who supported prop 8 (or DOMA for that matter) is a raging bigot.

                            Although we have gone past the original point/post I think. Interesting discussion though. Take care.

                          •  "marriage as a monogamous linkage between (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            two people based upon self-selection and love with both being equal partners is about 40 years old in this society, and still doesn't exist in many others."

                            Huh? Not sure I follow what you mean there."

                            You seem to be blissfully unaware of the way marriage has changed over time.  It was a legal institution to convey property (hence why serfs and slaves, who had no property, couldn't get legally married).  Women married and became chattel to their husbands.  Whatever assets they inherited went to their husbands, they couldn't own property and they had no rights whatsoever regarding their own children.  That was true in this country until the early twentieth century, BTW. And did you know that as late as the early 1970s, banks were allowed to require that a woman seeking a loan get approval from her husband?

                            Marriages were arranged by parents and were not based upon love but upon what was viewed as most economically advantageous for the families involved.

                            And that doesn't include any traditional marriages that were polygamous or polyandrous (and there is a long history of that in many cultures).

                            Clearer now?  The point is that all this waxing rhapsodic about the sanctity of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, ordained by God in love that has been ever the same throughout history and across cultures, hence, why it can't be changed to include gays and lesbians is a steaming pile of bullshit.

                            "I suspect you know full well that there is difference between racial segregation and denying people constitutional right based on their skin color and some people's uneasiness with redefining a social institution (but not blankly denying constitutional right) like marriage."

                            Because no one was uneasy at redefining the social institution of segregation?  Because no one used the Bible and "we've always done it this way" (i.e., tradition) as rationalizations for segregation?

                            And why is one inherent characteristic (skin color) more important than another (sexual orientation)?   There is no difference when it comes to discrimination for either.

                            "Again, most prominent Democrats had the religious based view that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman at that time."

                            Cite?  In particular, please show where it was claimed to be religiously-based.  Especially in the case of Bill "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" Clinton.  LOL.

                          •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                            "It was a legal institution to convey property ". Yeah, that's the only reason anyone got married before 1974.  Thankfully  my grandparents, and great-grandparents  were "blissfully unaware" of this arrangement.  Blissfully unaware? Look in the mirror.

                            As for the religious basis for opposing gay marriage by prominent democrats, you can goggle those who voted for DOMA but here is one quote you can chew on:

                            ""I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix.""

                          •  "It was a legal institution to convey property " (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            . Yeah, that's the only reason anyone got married before 1974.  Thankfully  my grandparents, and great-grandparents  were "blissfully unaware" of this arrangement.  Blissfully unaware? Look in the mirror."

                            The reason your logic is so weak on this topic is because your thinking is so terribly muddled.  There is a romantic basis for marriage, which is, in the history of our culture, a very new thing, and still doesn't exist in many other cultures.

                            There is a religious basis, which is also fairly new -- it started in the Middle Ages.  Kingdoms and alliances were built upon which monarch's child married which other monarch's child.  The Church was very involved in secular power in those days, and one of the ways it enforced that power was by determining who was eligible to marry whom, which was then sanctioned by a Church wedding.  Before that, marriages were not performed in churches, and, if memory serves, Paul considered marriage a lesser state than celibacy and churches were not to be used to sanctify such inferior lifestyles.  

                            Finally, there is the legal basis of marriage, which, whether your feelings like it or not, always was and always will be about property and custody of children.  Just ask anyone who has been through a divorce.

                            Hopefully, that clarifies things a bit for you.

                            Thanks for the cite.  I love President Obama, but one of his flaws is his need to make everyone happy.  He really should stop all the pandering to the religious wing-nuts.  It's beneath him, it's the Republicans' job and it's certainly not going to win him any points with the wing-nuts.  It's pointless, and it's embarrassing to his supporters, who tend to prefer the rational.

                          •  Romantic basis and more (0+ / 0-)

                            I am not muddled, and please save the juvenile condescension for yourself.  Romantic (or sexual) reasons for marriage are not "recent", nor are religious ceremonies (1300 or so). Unless you really think that 700 years ago is recent.

                            As for the legal basis being property, there is that aspect- who owns our stuff if we split- , but not the reason.

                            As for Obama I see you rationalize his statement on the matter but take others seriously. Cognitive dissonance? Clintons, Biden, Leahy, Reid, many many others said much the same. Were they also just pandering or being sincere?

                            I'm not sure why you think Obama was pandering? Or why you love someone who is, according to you, so hypocritical and manipulative?

                          •   "Romantic (or sexual) reasons for marriage (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            are not "recent", nor are religious ceremonies (1300 or so). Unless you really think that 700 years ago is recent."

                            "Marriage developed independently in hundreds of human civilizations, so it’s difficult to pinpoint history’s first marriage or even the society that first conceived of marriage as an institution. Early Sumerian marriage agreements, which date to the third millennium B.C., are among the oldest records relating to marriage. The couples swore an oath to a series of deities in a small number of agreements, but most of the records contain no mention of gods or religion, suggesting that the Sumerians viewed weddings as legal events. "

                            http://www.slate.com/...

                            So, given that 1,300 AD is, what, 3,000 plus years later, yeah, that's a pretty recent development.

                            "As for Obama I see you rationalize his statement on the matter but take others seriously. Cognitive dissonance? Clintons, Biden, Leahy, Reid, many many others said much the same. Were they also just pandering or being sincere?"

                            I seriously doubt Bill Clinton made a religous argument for marriage.  And the point remains that all these folks have since seen the error of their ways.  Patrick Leahy in particular is a strong champion of marriage equality.  The point also remains that Brendan Eich hasn't seen the error of his ways.

                            "I'm not sure why you think Obama was pandering? Or why you love someone who is, according to you, so hypocritical and manipulative?"

                            Nobody's perfect.  And as long as people are willing to learn and adapt, I'm perfectly willing to forgive their prior errors.  Again, Eich isn't willing to do that.

                            Bigger picture, what I don't understand is why you continue to be an apologist for people who are obviously prejudiced.  I honestly don't care how sincere they think they are.   Slave owners and segregationists were sincere in their belief that those two institutions were divinely ordained.  Misogynists throughout history have considered themselves carrying out God's plan as  they denied women rights and abused them.  Every Catholic who killed Protestants and every Protestant who killed Catholics in the Thirty Years War no doubt believed they were carrying out the divine will to rid the world of apostates.  The 9-11 attackers were motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs as they killed over 3,000 people.

                            It's not just religious sincerity that counts, it's what people's actions are based upon those deeply held beliefs.  Actions that hurt others aren't neutral, even if the people who carry them out honestly believe they are doing God's will.  You don't get a pass on hurting others just because you think God told you to.

                          •  wow (0+ / 0-)

                            wanting to hold on to a traditional definition marriage (yes it is a tradition- and no I do not consider 1300 "recent") isn't quite the same as beheading non believers, or bombing the taxi stand you know.

                            I and not apologizing for prejudice. I am saying that i understand where people have serious and pure concerns about redefining marriage. Just as Obama,Clinton and everyone see did just 5 years ago. Talk about "recent".

                            Yes I agree about peoples actions. But you yourself pointed out Obama was behaving in a most deceitful manner- and who's to say he still isn't taking apposition strictly for political purposes? Fool me once, twice, all that.

                            As for Clinton: "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. "

                            Your guess is as good as mine.

                            I take it you are not a fan of religion, but as a Catholic I come at it from a different place. So we will disagree. That's cool.

                          •  I once was a Catholic, and, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            quite honestly, the Church was incompatible with my sense of dignity as a woman and a human being.  Harsh, I know, but the Church could not accept that fact that I was neither a lifelong virgin or nor a breeder.  It had no place for me.  And the Church still has no place for strong, independent women.  Just look at the witch hunts perpetrated against American nuns.  All while covering up the actions of pedophile and pederast priests.  Shameful.

                            "wanting to hold on to a traditional definition marriage (yes it is a tradition- and no I do not consider 1300 "recent") isn't quite the same as beheading non believers, or bombing the taxi stand you know."

                            Why is is so hard for you to understand that holding on to that position, regardless of its history, hurts people?  It hurts the gay couple or lesbian couple who can't get legal recognition of a relationship that has lasted thirty or forty years, well beyond those of their heterosexual friends and family, some of whom get married every five years in Vegas, at the same time they end one car lease and start another?  It hurts the children of these relationships, who grow up with the pain and uncertainty that their parents' relationship isn't valid and they can be taken away at any time from the only family they've ever known and in which they are truly, deeply loved?  I'll admit that isn't as dramatic or immediately traumatic as bombing a taxi stand, but it's a long-term, slow, painful thing.  It's chronic rather than acute, and that doesn't make the pain any less, just more drawn out.   And, as anyone who has suffered chronic pain will tell you, it's as bad or worse than acute pain.

                            I don't care how deeply religious views are held, or how long people have held them.  If they hurt other people, especially if they want to use the government to hurt other people who don't believe the way they do, that's just wrong.

                          •  I can totally agree (0+ / 0-)

                            in principle if not in kind with all you say. I grew up Presbyterian (God's chosen frozen). My wife is Catholic and we became pricing for the sake of her, the family culture, and of course progeny. It wasn't required or even asked- but her Catholic culture (i"ll refrain from theology- as she is not doctrinaire Catholic in practice) was so much a part of the fabric of her family as posed to the "passive" part Presbyterianism played in mine.

                            I can dig the women thing. I have some misgivings myself. And I am totally behind efforts to reform the culture of abuse. My wife is actually on the board of the Diocese abuse council (as a counselor/therapist). I'd rather see the true meaning of The Church fulfilled and fixed by men/women as it was abused by men, rather than give up.

                            I also understand how the opposition to gay marriage is tough. My niece, who I love dearly is gay. It was heart wrenching for her to come out to her parents (she actually talked to my wife before anyone else) and I totally support gay marriage. but I also understand the strain with tradition and religious belief. And people who have sincere love in their heart without agreeing to gay marriage. As I have maintained since the beginning of this conversation, it just isn't that simple. It is very, very complicated.

                            Peace be with you.

                          •  There are individual Catholics who are awesome. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mister T, Tonedevil

                            I grew up with some parish priests, and nuns who taught me my catechism, and if they were still alive, even as an atheist, I'd walk through fire with any one of them.  Obviously, that was a long time ago and I have no idea what their views were on homosexuality and how accepting they were then.  (Heck, at the time I was a child and didn't even know what sexuality was.)  I just know they were compassionate people who recognized that humans are flawed and worthy of love.  I was very lucky.  My childhood came immediately after Vatican II and between that and the social ferment of the sixties, it was all about rights and recognizing the worth of people who weren't like you.   My childhood was about widening the circle, and it's a reflex for me now.  And I tend to forget that not everyone was lucky enough to have that experience.  No one born later can possibly understand how exhilarating that was.  Anything was possible.  Reagan's greatest crime wasn't Iran-Contra or cheerfully letting gay men die horrible, agonizing deaths from AIDS alone and ostracized to pander to his base (although that was the number two crime, the evil bastard, and if I believed in Hell, I'd hope he'd frying there just for that), it was shutting down all that beautiful possibility that everyone could respect each other.  It became all about people being valued by their net worth.  And now I've scaled back my expectations and one of the few things I dare to want is that the circle can be widened a little more to include my gay friends and my lesbian friends being able to form legally recognized families. That's all.

                            By the way, my husband is a former Presbyterian (he's sort of a Buddhist now) and I can imagine his getting a genuine chuckle out of "God's chosen frozen."

                •  So... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil

                  ...you think people should be forced to use Mozilla software? Because people turning to other company's software is what caused Eich to resign. Are users not allowed to choose different software?

                  •  No (0+ / 0-)

                    I ever said that either. I've said that the move to force his resignation because he believed marriage was between a man and a woman is selective and hypocritical. A lot of people believed that at the time including he Clintons, most prominent Democrats, and the current President. Not to mention the OKCupid CEO who started the whole movement donated to a candidate who opposed gay rights.

        •  Did you read... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, homogenius, vacantlook, aimeehs

          ...far enough down in the Mother Jones piece to which you provided a link to see Yagan's statement to the SF Chronicle?

          To where he explained he donated to Cannon "because he was the ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversaw the Internet and Intellectual Property," and went on to add, "I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today?"

          Are you aware of any similar statement from Eich?

          And did you note this distinction from Yagan: "... a contribution made to a candidate with views on hundreds of issues has no equivalence to a contribution supporting Prop. 8, a single issue that has no purpose other than to affirmatively prohibit gay marriage?"

          Are you suggesting there is such equivalence, either between the two actions or the respective situations of Eich and Yagan?

          •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

            and just because that vote was in his financial interest doesn't give him a pass on hypocrisy.

            •  Where... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, homogenius, anon004
              I accept responsibility for not knowing where he stood on gay rights in particular; I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today.
              ...is the "hypocrisy?"
              •  Ummm... OK (0+ / 0-)

                "not knowing where he stood on gay rights" but knowing where he stands on personal financial interests? But he's SO interested in gay rights when it comes to other CEOs? Yeah, sure. Right.

                •  Have you known... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil, anon004, vacantlook

                  ...every position on every conceivable issue of every candidate for whom you ever voted or contributed?

                  As someone once said, "Yeah, sure. Right."

                  And you seem to have neglected:

                  ...and I would not make that contribution again today.
                  I suggest that if Brendan Eich had made that same statement, that would have been the end of it, and he'd still be CEO.
                  •  I've known where they stood on (0+ / 0-)

                    issues that were THAT important yes. Heh.

                    •  And the beauty of it is... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tonedevil, anon004

                      ...you get to decide what's "THAT" important to you and when (as I said earlier), just as Messrs Yagan, Obama and Eich do.

                      And others get to decide whether or not to support those whose opinions agree with their own, even if they differ from ones held in the past.

                      Which again brings us to my final point above about both Yagan and Eich, and which you've again neglected.  

                      •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                        you seemed to imply that Yagan was innocent of knowing where that candidate stood on an issue that is, of such  importance to him, that he would hound another CEO out of a job over it. I find that very hard to believe. Thus, my charge of hypocrisy.

                        •  I didn't "imply" it... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Tonedevil, anon004

                          ...he said it.

                          Neither of us can know what was in Yagan's mind, what was important to him or what he was aware of at the time.

                          This, however, at this time...

                          I unequivocally support marriage equality and I would not make that contribution again today.
                          ...is definitive, and good enough for me.

                          As - and I add with emphasis - it would have been had it come from Eich.

                          •  heh (0+ / 0-)

                            Well I've got a bridge for sale. A for Eich he IS entitled to his opinions without repercussions. I thought. Maybe he doesn't feel he should recant just because he was caught in a hypocritical campaign against a private citizen. Doesn't matter now, the double standard is already solidified. And again that is my point. Why is TIDAy the magic day? What wasn't 2008? 2007? Who gets to be the arbiter of designating morality day? What are the criteria? See where I get a religious fundamentalist vibe?

                          •  It's always difficult for me... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mister T

                            ...to resist a rebuttal - and I think we've already covered the ground referenced above, anyway - but I'll say this has been an engaging debate, and I hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have.

                          •  One, Eich's opinions did not have reprecussions, (4+ / 0-)

                            his activities did.  And those activities involved using the political system to take away the rights of someone else.  Hardly just having an opinion.

                            Why is today the magic day?  Because today (or, rather a couple of weeks ago), this guy was the new CEO of Mozilla.  His activities regarding Prop 8 were publicized, and both the employees and the customers of Mozilla had a problem with it.  He couldn't change what he'd done in 2008, but he sure could say he'd changed his mind about the worthiness of it.  Your comment basically says that no one can ever learn something and change their mind because of it.  

                            And yes, morality is ever-changing and complex, just like everything else.  Oh, and by the way, that's the opposite of fundamentalism.

        •  You do realize... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          ...that candidates have more positions than a single issue.

    •  It's not a matter of... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, RockyMtnLib

      ..."who gets to decide" and "when."

      We all get to decide where we stand at any given moment, and how we feel about the answer to the question, "Where do you stand now, Mr./Ms. CEO/presidential candidate/next door neighbor/etc?"

      The problem with the "respecting a tradition" r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶i̶z̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶  aspect of opposing marriages of same-sex couples is threefold. The first is the latter's complete lack of impact and effect upon the former.

      The second is each person's freedom to observe - or reject - any "tradition" they choose: no one is compelled to abandon the "tradition" in which they believe; indeed, those hewing to the "social and religious contract among opposite sex couples" point of view continue to follow their own lights without any interference.

      Which leads to the third aspect of that problem: interference itself. "Respecting a tradition" loses all validity when it translates into action preventing others from doing anything that doesn't conform to that "tradition."  

      •  Again (0+ / 0-)

        Are we not entitled to our own private beliefs? When they do not cross any legal lines? That is why I am so uncomfortable about the bums rush on Eich. His position was essentially the same as the Presidential candidate (I presume) you voted for at that time. Indeed a majority of voters in California held that opinion. Why, five years later is it ok to say well you're a bigot you must go- bit others with the same opinion- they get a pass. It is so subjective and arbitrary and I do both think that is "progressive".

        •  In order: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, anon004
          Are we not entitled to our own private beliefs?
          Who says otherwise? Eich's still entitled to his. What "entitles" him to be CEO of Mozilla (or anything else)? Nothing that I know of. He is, however, also still entitled to contribute to any anti-gay/discriminatory ballot initiative he chooses, as well as to bear the responsibility for any consequences occurring in the marketplace for any product or service he represents.
          When they do not cross any legal lines?
          Is Eich being prosecuted for - or been accused of - any crime? Red herring.
          His position was essentially the same as the Presidential candidate

          The position of that candidate:

          "I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman...But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them."

          And I, as were others who voted for him, was aware of that position (and the opposing candidate held an even more rigid one: he supported the proposition).

          ...a majority of voters in California held that opinion.
          7 million out of 17 million registered voters and 22 million eligible ones. And the amendment for which those 7 million voted was subsequently ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts, including the highest. The election was legal; the proposition was not, so: moot point.

          Now that all the distractions have been cleared away, I ask you this: do you possess the right to discontinue support of any product/service/company employing someone with whose views you strongly disagree, and to communicate that withholding of support to that company?

          Of course you do. That's all that happened here.

          •  My goodness (0+ / 0-)

            we can remove a CEO for having just barely, slightly different, views than the prudent. By all means persecute the guy for that. He IS being persecuted- run out of a position for his legal beliefs. Again I am not up in arms over this, but it is just so, fundie:. "Heretic! He does not believe the same as we do now (although we did too 5 years ago) lets make sure he cannot be a CEO".

            it isn't a red herring, his private views resulted in a hypocritical campaign to remove him as CEo by another CEo.

            The voters who cared enough about the issue to vote made their views known. You got the red herrings there.

            Sure I do, but it doesn't mean I SHOULD.

        •  Again, Eich wasn't just having a private belief. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          He was participating in advocacy to make the government discriminate against a group of people. That's not belief, that's action.

          Why do you ignore that?

          When they do not cross any legal lines?
          What part of the government discriminated against a group of people do you think isn't crossing any legal lines?
    •  Who drew any lines... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StevenWells, anon004

      except perhaps the Mozilla Corporation? If OKCupid decides that Sam Yagan is presenting a PR problem he could be asked to CEO somewhere else just as easily. The CEO isn't just some employee they are the most senior face of the company. The opinions of the guy in cubicle 35482, who pushes emails around for 8 hours a day, aren't generally important enough to rate a company boycott the head of the company is in a unique position in that regard.
      I really don't care if or why someone is opposed to gay marriage unless they are declining one of their own their opinion is worthless. There is no valid reason to be opposed to a marriage between to willing people capable of consent. It is not as though one concept of Marriage has existed for thousands of years and this is the first anyone has tried to alter it in all that time. There are different marriage traditions the world over and they have changed frequently. It is just as bigoted, not to mention unconstitutional, to stop same sex marriages through law as it is to stop mixed race marriages.

      This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

      by Tonedevil on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 03:50:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What the flying fuck? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil
      Additionally opposing gay marriage is, in and of itself, not necessarily an anti gay position.
      Yes, it is. It totally is anti-gay. Two dudes getting married in no way impacts anyone except for those two people. There is no other reason to oppose letting them get married other than animus toward them because they're both men. No matter how much homophobes want to pretend that they're not bigots just because they don't call every gay person they meet a faggot doesn't mean that they're not bigots. Regardless of why you want it to be such, if you think the government should discriminate against same-sex couples, you are a bigot.
  •  I've been wrestling with the question of whether (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RockyMtnLib

    being "against" same-sex marriage (or marriage equality) is by definition and in all cases rooted in bigotry, ignorance and/or hatred. I don't think it is, necessarily, but I think it matters why and how a person reaches and expresses that opinion.

    When I first heard of the concept of same-sex marriage long time ago, I mulled it over for a few moments and thought, "Why not?" In all the years since I've never gotten a good answer to that question, which is really the only question that matters.

    By "good answer" I mean one that doesn't begin an end with some subjective feeling about What Marriage Is™ and how same-sex marriage is Just Not Right™ (let alone one that in any way invokes religion or "morality"). People who are against it for reasons other than religious bigotry or anti-gay animus don't really know why they're against it, or at least have a hard time explaining it beyond vague, empty platitudes.

    I think I'm far from alone among people who might have felt that way at one time but when they seriously asked themselves, "Why not?" and couldn't come up with a good answer, realized there wasn't one and found themselves OK with it. They may even realize, as I have, that our Constitution, the very concept of living in a "free" country, requires that we have marriage equality.

    I don't think it's accurate that opposition to marriage equality must be grounded in bigotry. I think it's more accurate to say it's grounded in vague, inarticulable, subjective feelings about How Things Should Be™. A lot of people who oppose marriage equality are bigots. But a lot more, I think, simply haven't given it enough thought.

    •  As the target... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil

      ...of the bigotry, I say yes being against marriage equality -- aka being for governmental discrimination against gay people -- most definitely is bigotry.

      No one can be against marriage equality for any reason other than anti-gay animus. There is more to homophobia than just calling gay guys faggots. Wanting the government to discriminate against gay people, for any reason whatsoever and no matter how polite one is in expressing that reason, is homophobic bigotry.

      There has never been a reason cited other than gays are bad. No matter how much a person might try to pretend they're not doing it out of being against gay people by trotting out "tradition," that tradition is one of exclusion, and that is being against those being excluded. It is homophobic.

      •  I might rephrase slightly to say that (0+ / 0-)

        continuing to be against it after giving it due consideration, is probably a result of bigotry or anti-gay animus. Most people don't understand civil rights law and don't really understand the legal issues at hand. They don't see it as "government discriminating against gay people" because they don't see, know or understand the relationship between marriage and law.

        I'm not saying anyone should be forgiven for being against it; I just think the presumption of bigotry, if you will, should not apply until the person has had a chance to consider it objectively and either fails or refuses to do so.

        I've heard plenty of "reasons" other than "gays are bad." One particularly horrifying one was that hetero couples are "unique" and "special" because they can procreate, and therefore deserving of special benefits, privileges and compensation from the state in the form of exclusive access to marriage, because procreation is a service to the state. It was not so much that "gays are bad" as that non-gays are so singularly wonderful because of their capacity to procreate that they and only they deserve the rights, benefits, privileges and immunities of civil marriage. This sick individual even compared marriage to veterans' benefits, viz., a privilege reserved for select individuals who have "earned" it.

        It is absolutely true that there is no good reason why same-sex couples should not have access to the legal status of "married" and "spouse." My only point was that a lot of people who are not bigots might initially think that there is, and then realize that there isn't when they give it some thought and can't find one. I think you'd have to give it some thought, learn a little bit about civil rights (and matrimonial) law, and still be against it because ... well, you know.

  •  We need to scrutinize rich people's beliefs... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, StevenWells, anon004

    ...because the Roberts court has made them all that more powerful. Making sure that they feel fire when they make campaign donations (which can theoretically be unlimited now) is one of the last weapons that can be used to make the rich think twice about campaign donations, until there is a progressive majority on the court to reverse the damage the conservatives have caused. If CEOs make hundreds of times what the average worker makes, they deserve hundreds of times the scrutiny.

    At any rate, all this attention to the Eich case by libertarians like Conor Friedersdorf is disingenuous. More people have lost jobs or been refused service because they are LGBT than people who have maybe been forced out for making anti-gay donations. Do you see Conor Friedersdorf writing no less than THREE articles about that in the span of a week? Nope, because the guy is just a sophisticated apologist for the status quo.

    If anything, the "resignation" of Eich is a good thing because it will show conservatives that the shoe fits on the other hoof too, and if they want to be serious about separating the personal from the political, than they should drop their endorsement of Hobby Lobby, they should support antidiscrimination measures like ENDA, and they should make sure that some private citizens don't have more public voice than others because of their wealth. If they do that, then sure, let's talk about being more tolerant of CEO's personal beliefs.

  •  What REALLY happened (0+ / 0-)

    The mobile guys were freaked that a desktop guy was put in the CEO spot.  This seemed like certain doom for Firefox on mobile in the long run.  

    They scramble around desperate for a game changer, some kind of stick or lever.  They find the Prop 8 contribution from 2008 and network like crazy to make hay of it, calling all friends, colleagues, ex-underlings and ex-bosses, etc. including buddies at OKCupid, of course.

    In a few days they've got an internet "firestorm" and Mr. Desktop steps down.

    A lot to do with energetic networking, not really about tolerance or intolerance.

    the Clear Light is the consciousness of the quantum vacuum

    by Sharkmeister on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:41:19 PM PDT

  •  Eich resigned. His decision. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vacantlook, Tonedevil

    Just as he gets to exercise fee speech, he gets to resign his employment for whatever reason he choses and exercised that too.

    I keep restating the above because it keeps getting lost in these discussions.

    The system is working, everyone is getting to speak if they choose to, Eich included.

    So what is wrong?

    Can someone please explain that to me in simple and clear terms?

    No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

    by koNko on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 07:23:56 AM PDT

  •  How is this any different (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    waterstreet2013

    from the wingnut freakout over the Dixie Chicks.  If I do not like someone's position, I take my business elsewhere (I'm looking at you MallWart) and I let everybody know why.

    •  ...I sure don't fault you there...I don't shop... (0+ / 0-)

      ...MallWart neither...

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

      by paradise50 on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 04:20:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clear Channel banned the Dixie Chicks (0+ / 0-)

      from public airwaves.

      The whole of the RW country music mafia banned them for life from their media assets.

      Of course the girls were right. GWB ended up with the utterly shameful, criminal Total Extra Deaths figure for his Iraq adventure at 1,961,000 people.

      For lies.

      Anything Natalie Maines and the gals do... I'm in for it.

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Ryan Paul von Koch

      by waterstreet2013 on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 03:30:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Are all opponents of marriage equality, bigots? (0+ / 0-)

    Yes. By definition they are.

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 03:44:23 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site