Mozilla CEO resigns because of Prop 8 donation in 2008

[garbon]

It comes down to that difference again. I'd give Lord Tebbit a hug and invite him to my (entirely fictional) gay wedding - safe in the knowledge that he wouldn't turn up so there wouldn't be a scene with my dad calling him a 'fascist'

Why waste the postage?

[Ed Anger]

Might get a free toaster oven.

[OttoVonBismarck]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

It's quaint how "not wanting to crucify him" equals defending him in your fag-fascist model.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Garbon's always been a stupid political creature in any case though, niceties aside. No surprise here.

[DontSayBanana]

To be frank the rise of gay marriage over the past say 15 years, has lead me to believe that it's deeply unfair for heterosexual couples to receive various benefits that are closed to gay couples because those benefits are linked to a state sanctioned marriage. But it's also called into question why exactly the State is so deeply intertwined in the marriage business. It's hard for me not to see it as a relic of the day when the man worked, the woman stayed at home and raised kids, and thus benefits across the board absolutely needed to be familial in nature. If we're not promoting single earner homes as social policy, then I'm not sure there is a social positive to giving various benefits (at the governmental level) to dual income cohabiting couples, whether they be legally married straights or gays or gay couples unable to marry due to their state of residence etc. This is especially true when the couples have no children.

It seems to me a simple legal regime would just apply tax benefits based on your dependents (who could  basically be anyone who is dependent on you), and require employer plans to either be all or nothing. This would mean they cover only the employee, or they have provisions for dependent benefits for any dependent for Federal tax purposes. I don't really care about the religious implications of State marriage because the religious aspect of my marriage is governed by the Church, not the State--which is why if I get a State sanctioned divorce it doesn't affect whether I'm married in the Church. But not everyone is Catholic and has that sort of structure and many Catholics disagree with me; I don't actually see it as intrinsically contrary to morality to believe for religious reasons gays shouldn't be getting married.

One common argument I hear against my stance is that without some automatic rights of spouses it fucks things up like estates and etc, but to be honest lots of assets have weird rules that really don't get made simpler with marriage. For example my TSP balance (or any private 401k plan) goes to whomever I name as a beneficiary. If I name my wife as the beneficiary by name, then get divorced and alter my will so that all of my estate goes to my daughter upon my death (per stirpes), then the TSP actually still goes to my wife (even in her status as ex-wife), and does not go to my children as the beneficiary designation form holds primacy. So really if the big argument for state marriage and gay marriage (other than the benefit issue) are matters of automatic inheritance and such I'd argue the people making that are unaware of the complexities of settling an estate. That's something anyone who actually really wants to make sure their assets are divided up as they please really needs to look into with a lawyer and not leave to misunderstandings about who automatically gets assets upon death.

I've been arguing this point for years- my stance on homosexual marriage is that:

A) Since childless marriages receive the same benefits as parenting marriages, the family unit justification doesn't hold water.
B) Since state endorsement of marriage isn't actually based on a family unit, it's an endorsement of a religious concept that clearly violates separation of church and state.
C) Since the religious right will have kittens and never allow their "rights" as married couples to be taken away, it's a far easier bandage to apply to simply extend those rights to all homosexual marriages/civil unions/domestic partnerships that can jump through the appropriate legal hurdles, regardless of the gender of the participants.

[Admiral Yi]

You think only the religious right cares about things like spousal benefits? 

[DontSayBanana]

You think only the religious right cares about things like spousal benefits? 

Not at all.  But if retraction of spousal benefits were ever to be seriously considered, they spring to my mind as most likely to be most vocal in their opposition.  Everyone would get pretty vocal, but most of the other arguments wouldn't gain much traction, since they'd probably be based on the fallacy that spousal benefits benefit the family unit more than the partnership itself.

[garbon]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

It's quaint how "not wanting to crucify him" equals defending him in your fag-fascist model.

I don't want to crucify him.

[garbon]

You think only the religious right cares about things like spousal benefits? 

Not at all.  But if retraction of spousal benefits were ever to be seriously considered, they spring to my mind as most likely to be most vocal in their opposition.  Everyone would get pretty vocal, but most of the other arguments wouldn't gain much traction, since they'd probably be based on the fallacy that spousal benefits benefit the family unit more than the partnership itself.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying...other than you wanted to attack the right.

[Admiral Yi]

Not at all.  But if retraction of spousal benefits were ever to be seriously considered, they spring to my mind as most likely to be most vocal in their opposition.  Everyone would get pretty vocal, but most of the other arguments wouldn't gain much traction, since they'd probably be based on the fallacy that spousal benefits benefit the family unit more than the partnership itself.

I'm pretty sure the argument "they're taking away our money" would get all kinds of traction.

[Valmy]

FWIW, while Mr. Eich might care a lot about making sure I don't get married - I don't actually give a rat's ass about him or his donation beyond some generalized disgust. What does have me recoiling is how quick we are to defend him.

It's quaint how "not wanting to crucify him" equals defending him in your fag-fascist model.

I don't want to crucify him.

So since you agree with us why are you recoiling from our identical position?

[The Brain]

Is petty bigotry in line with Mozilla's CSR policy?

[The Brain]

There aren't many political issues that I care strongly enough about to join a campaign to get someone fired or similar, but if I learn that for instance a person has voted against me on an issue then of course I will hold that against him to some degree. Voting/donating isn't a joke, it has real impact on real people, and you don't automatically get a free pass.

[Josquius]

It is a view I disagree with, but kind of crap he has been hounded out of his job because he held it, especially considering merely being against gay marriage isn't exactly an extreme position. Had he spoke out about gay people's continued existence then that would be a differnet matter.

[Valmy]

There aren't many political issues that I care strongly enough about to join a campaign to get someone fired or similar, but if I learn that for instance a person has voted against me on an issue then of course I will hold that against him to some degree. Voting/donating isn't a joke, it has real impact on real people, and you don't automatically get a free pass.

Indeed you don't.  Tread carefully my friends the mob is watching.