I don’t think there’s a point in stretching the author’s claim here: marriage between competent adults is about as firmly within the “civil right” category as anything can be.
That includes polygamy of course, right? I mean, if all people involved are competent, consenting adults, why wouldn't that be a civil right? Do you agree? Or is that one of those "Let me in, then close the door" type of issues?
Polygamy is a tough one because historically it has been strongly associated with certain fringe sects that are heavily male dominated, and the women are treated more like household servants than wives. Old school “it isn’t rape if we’re married” types. The women aren’t allow jobs, divorce, or personal finances.
Actual, honest to goodness, full-freedom and consent polygamy I personally have zero issue with. Live and let live, as long as you aren’t tell me how to live MY life.
So marriage is a civil right, except when people have a gut feeling that it's problematic and throw around "think of the X!" moral panic tantrums.
This attitude seems to define civil rights today, from drug prohibition to sexual liberty. Ironically, it very closely resembles how conservative moralism operates and has always operated.
I'll reframe this for you: in a liberal society, we default to open social policies rather than closed ones. There's no moral or principled legal basis for the civil right of marriage being extended to only straight couples.
Restricting polygamy does have a principled legal basis: it's historically associated with subjugation, and you don't have a civil right to subjugate others. If and when that association vanishes (i.e., society is convinced that all parties are able to competently consent), then there will be no legal basis for excluding them from the civil right of marriage. Your "ick" response is not a valid basis.
You seem to be conflating the legal definition of marriage with a christian definition of marriage. While both are malleable, it's well within the scope of government to alter legal terms. In fact that's precisely what Eich was trying to do in the first place.
I was not the one making a claim that legal terms are immutable. My argument is that by working to deny civil rights to a subset of what would become his employees he is incapable of leading Mozilla.
Or it makes _them_ incapable of working for Mozilla. If you can't handle having a working relationship with someone that disagrees with you, then what kind of colleague will you be? Are you going to tolerate a coworker that disagrees with you politically? Are you going to be able to manage or be managed by someone with a different background to you?
Someone that won't work for a company whose CEO donated in 2008 to a mainstream political cause (widely supported across the political spectrum including by the left-wing President of the time) is not the sort of person anyone would want to work with, tbh!
This isn't a mere political disagreement, this is someone actively working to deny civil rights.
Now there's a few ways to approach that. Look at your emotional reaction, screeching that you can't redefine marriage (a mutable legal term) and the rank hypocrisy of that argument in the face of Eich doing his best to redefine marriage to suit his predilections. Now consider how strong your opinions are in spite of the fact that legalizing same-sex marriage does not negatively effect you in any way whatsoever. Imagine how strongly someone would feel if Eich's campaign to redefine marriage (and deny you the legal protectons and benefits associated with marrage) actually effected you.
Alternatively, let's assume your hot take is true, that the real problem is employees being incapable of working for someone trying to deny civil rights. Imagine that you want to hire a CEO that would render large swaths of your company incapable of working for you. You don't see a problem with that?
widely supported across the political spectrum including by the left-wing President
of the time
If you're just going to make shit up to support your argument, it's awful hard to take your hyperventilating seriously. Obama publicly condemned Prop 8 and didn't equivocate. Even the notoriously homophobic Feinstein opposed Prop 8.
>This isn't a mere political disagreement, this is someone actively working to deny civil rights.
What do you think political disagreement is? You can frame any political disagreement as a matter of 'civil rights'. Even if we accept that marriage is a human right (I would say it's one of many societal institutions that has some legal consequences) it's not clear to me that marriage is a 'civil right' as opposed to a social right. The normal legal distinction is between 'civil and political rights' (protected by law in all democracies) and 'economic, social and cultural rights' (protected by law in Europe, but not in Anglosphere countries, where their status as 'human rights' is debated).
Should the state provide housing to everyone? Political disagreement, right? No, that's the 'right to housing'. Should the state provide jobs to everyone? Political disagreement, right? No, that's the 'right to work' that's being engaged there. If you disagree, then you want to deny someone their civil rights. etc.
>Now there's a few ways to approach that. Look at your emotional reaction, screeching that you can't redefine marriage (a mutable legal term)
I disagree. I don't think it's a legal term. Is water a legal term? Is book? Obviously any term can be used in legal instruments, but that doesn't automatically make it a legal term. The law didn't (traditionally) define marriage. Marriage was a social institution with a well-established meaning, and it had legal consequences. But marriage is clearly a pre-legal concept that had legal consequences attached, not something conjured up by the law.
Putting 'a mutable legal term' is parentheses after the word doesn't make it one.
>and the rank hypocrisy of that argument in the face of Eich doing his best to redefine marriage to suit his predilections.
Eich didn't attempt to 'redefine marriage'. The attempt that was being made was to retain the same definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years.
>Now consider how strong your opinions are in spite of the fact that legalizing same-sex marriage does not negatively effect you in any way whatsoever.
It negatively affects me in lots of ways. It's directly led to a world in which you can be fired for refusing to use someone's 'preferred pronouns'. It's directly led to a world of 'drag queen story time'. The slippery slope is just a fallacy, right? Right? Lol.
>Imagine how strongly someone would feel if Eich's campaign to redefine marriage (and deny you the legal protectons and benefits associated with marrage) actually effected you.
As I have already said, the campaign that Eich contributed a small amount to did not seek to redefine marriage. Civil unions already existed and the legal protections and benefits afforded to married couples could have been extended to those in civil unions.
>Alternatively, let's assume your hot take is true, that the real problem is employees being incapable of working for someone trying to deny civil rights. Imagine that you want to hire a CEO that would render large swaths of your company incapable of working for you. You don't see a problem with that?
A few very vocal employees complained about it. The company chose them over Eich. Today, Mozilla is one of the single most woke companies. It has publicly stated multiple times that it wants to deplatform people for expressing milquetoast views that were universally held a decade or two ago, and are still widely held today.
And again, your question is presumptuous. You presume within the wording of your question that this has something to do with 'civil rights'. It doesn't.
> If you're just going to make shit up to support your argument, it's awful hard to take your hyperventilating seriously. Obama publicly condemned Prop 8 and didn't equivocate. Even the notoriously homophobic Feinstein opposed Prop 8.
