> >I mean, maybe the guy was just for civil unions instead, who knows what his reasoning was.

> Does that sound likely to you?

So you're for running people out of their jobs when they take a political position you don't like, because you know what their likely motives for doing so are? You think that's the moral thing to do? You don't see any problems with, say, false positives?

And even if you think your judgement will be accurate, be careful. You're setting the precedent of someone else judging your likely motives, and therefore running you out of your job.

This is not a wise way to run a society. It's better not to go there.