The apologists just keep repeating the same argument: that what Eich did was merely expressing a personal view, whilst those opposing his appointment as CEO were a mob on a witch hunt.
The reality is that Eich as a supporter of Prop 8 was part of a mob on a witch hunt, one with considerably greater consequences than a CEO resigning from his job. The job of one man doesn't even begin to compare to the civil rights of so many.
The continued portrayal of Eich as the victim instead of the aggressor bothers me a lot.
To paint Eich as a good guy and those who opposed him as some evil misinformed opportunistic lynch mob is a complete reversal of reality.
Prop 8 supporters are the lynch mob, and Eich was one of them. Calling for him to step down is a relatively mild response to that.
This being said, it really bothers me that OKC and others did not clean up after themselves. Battle won, they just fucked off. No encompassing announcement of "Hey, use Mozilla again, boycott over". They got what they want, Mozilla is once again pure in the diversity stakes, but they didn't bother to clear the bad air. They've basically left the bad taste of the virulent boycott hanging around despite getting exactly the change they wanted.
So yes, it was a witch hunt - they only cared about destroying Eich, not strengthening Mozilla, and were happy to damage their Mozillan allies (that they purported to be defending) in the process.
Besides, it's possible (and common) for both sides in an argument to be wrong.
Yeah I think your interpretation is fair. Taking a leadership stance takes on a higher level of responsibility to do the right thing and be just, and to appear to do that.
The job of one man doesn't even begin to compare to the civil rights of so many.
While this is true, I think comparing a political donation to a witch hunt and a lynch mob is a stretch.
It's not really clear to me how the rights of lesbian and gay people have been improved by Brendan's decision to resign. Whereas Mozilla has lost it's founder, new CEO and long-term CTO and, if recent activity on es-discuss is a reliable gauge, the ECMAScript committee has lost its benevolent dictator and the man who invented the language. Are you positive that the world is better without Brendan occupying those positions?
As explained many times in many forums, but obviously falling on deaf ears, drawing parallels with the KKK is absurd.
It's an unreasonable distortion of the debate, designed to emotionally repel all who disagrees with your views on defining marriage, and wrongly mixing up civil rights with human rights.
The KKK encroached on people's HUMAN rights, obviously. And while you insist that marriage is a matter of civil rights, it's easily arguable that marriage is not a civil right for gays or straight people.
The legal "benefits" allowed within established relationships on the other hand, can be argued as civil rights. This means you should be campaigning for equal rights for civil unions rather than trying to get everyone to re-define what they believe to be "marriage", which doesn't seem to be working. You like to think that everyone is on the same page as you, but many people holding back expressing their opinion on this matter simply don't want to be accused by people like you of gay-hatred, bigotry and all the other pathetic labels you have for those who don't agree with you about what "marriage" is, its limits and scope, and how much of it is inherently about male + female union.
Why is it the job of the gay folks to redefine civil unions to protect "traditional marriage"?
Had the folks who wanted to protect "traditional marriage" proposed removing marriage from the legal framework and replacing it with "civil union" do you have any idea the groundswell of support they would have had?
So, why didn't they? Why was there no campaign to remove "traditional marriage" from the legal framework? Why, instead, did a whole bunch of religious folks sponsor Prop 8 instead of a far superior and equal solution of removing the state altogether from "traditional marriage"?
Simple, Proposition 8 wasn't about marriage. It was about attacking "the gays". And people in the tech industry are smart enough to see it for what it was--a well-funded effort to inject religion-based bigotry into California law. And Eich is paying the price for that.
If I knew more about Prop 8 details, I'd comment on prop 8. I prefer the social and philosophical ideas around the wider debate, and the online activism overreaction, the tweeting Mozilla staff (who should just resign themselves IMHO).
If you're right that Prop 8 was about attacking gay people, then that sucks. This is where I'd like to hear from Eich on the matter. I've automatically assumed his innocence on the matter of gay-hatred, especially after reading his March 26 blog post.
Same-sex couples can still get married anyway, have a wedding without fear of the riot squad shutting the party down. Mickey Rooney married eight times. That's a lot of wedding parties. Definitely have the parties, the honeymoons. That stuff is the important stuff, then go after de-facto/unmarried/same-sex rights of couples.
Certificates for emergencies and so on, come on there's not actually that many rights. Some can be sorted out with co-habitation agreements and other arrangements.
What a sad thing for the Mozilla CEO that his own staff tweet against him just a day after his March 26 blog post promoting equality and stating he was open to advice from the LGBT community...
https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
The solution of having a "civil union" that takes care of that stuff and then "marriage" is up to the church is generally acceptable to the LGBT community. However, nobody from the other side is willing to do this either; they just want to bash the LGBT bunch.
> If you're right that Prop 8 was about attacking gay people, then that sucks.
It was. Sadly. And that's what pissed off a LOT of people. The Mormons swooped in and spent enormous amounts of money to get it passed. The Catholic church did too, but not as much as the Mormons.
> This is where I'd like to hear from Eich on the matter. I've automatically assumed his innocence on the matter of gay-hatred, especially after reading his March 26 blog post.
Don't. He believes this and is unapologetic. I suspect it's part of his religion.
I respect him for sticking to his position even though I find his position abhorrent. However, both he and Mozilla should have seen this coming and not put him in the CEO slot.
> Certificates for emergencies and so on, come on there's not actually that many rights. Some can be sorted out with co-habitation agreements and other arrangements.
It's NOT that easy. If it were, I suspect California would have done it already. "Marriage" winds its way through a lot of laws--power of attorney, medical emergency decisions, death benefits, child custody, divorce splits, alimony, adoption, the list goes on and on and on.
The stories of some bigoted doctor preventing a gay partner from visiting or making decisions while their loved one is dying are not uncommon. Can you imagine the lawsuit if that happened to a husband or wife of a traditional marriage? It would be so huge that it wouldn't even get to court.
> You like to think that everyone is on the same page as you, but many people holding back expressing their opinion on this matter simply don't want to be accused by people like you of gay-hatred, bigotry and all the other pathetic labels you have for those who don't agree with you about what "marriage" is, its limits and scope, and how much of it is inherently about male + female union.
Maybe because there's no real rational reason for them to hold onto the term for themselves, and they'd probably not be able to cogently explain why they're against sharing it, so they do what you just did and get all hypothetical and defensive about it instead.
State-sanctioned marriage has a meaning if it's purpose is to promote reproduction. Which is what marriage was for up to 50 years ago. It's an institution that has benefits to society, so it makes sense to promote and protect it.
Now if you think of marriage as "any love relationship sanctioned by the government", you of course should include same-sex couples. My objection is that then you have changed the meaning, and now there is no rational reason for not including "a love relationship between a man and his three wives", or "a love relationship between two siblings". Or "a love relationship between four men, two woman and a goat". Or just "a relationship between any number of humans that they choose to call marriage", love (or sex) should be no requirement. As long as all humans involved are adults, and they don't pretend me (via government) to subsidize any of their costs, there is no rational reason to hold onto the term just for couples, same-sex or not.
> This means you should be campaigning for equal rights for civil unions rather than trying to get everyone to re-define what they believe to be "marriage", which doesn't seem to be working.
It's not necessary to get everyone to re-define what they believe to be "marriage", just as it wasn't necessary to get all white people to accept black people as equals. All that's needed are enough people to tip the scales, and such support is inevitable:
You know that KKK were killing people right? and anti-interracial-marriage were not allowing people to live together. Do you think that can be compared to prop8 which only wanted to remove tax cuts and social status?
No, what Brendan helped pass was worse than anti-miscegenation laws. With the latter, you might not be able to marry your first preference, but there are plenty of fish in the sea. If you're gay, in post-Proposition 8 California, you could not marry anybody you were attracted to.
Where did I say that? I said that not being able to marry anybody at all you were attracted to is worse that not being able to live with one particular person that you might fall in love with.
Also, marriage has more legal implications than taxation.
The reality is that Eich as a supporter of Prop 8 was part of a mob on a witch hunt, one with considerably greater consequences than a CEO resigning from his job. The job of one man doesn't even begin to compare to the civil rights of so many.
The continued portrayal of Eich as the victim instead of the aggressor bothers me a lot.
To paint Eich as a good guy and those who opposed him as some evil misinformed opportunistic lynch mob is a complete reversal of reality.
Prop 8 supporters are the lynch mob, and Eich was one of them. Calling for him to step down is a relatively mild response to that.