I think that him wishing to write off a class of people as of lesser standing is a bit disingenuous. Unfortunately, marriage has become a mix of religious, economic, and legal meanings. In my experience, it isn't so much hating another group so much as feeling like something sacred to them is being coopted and horribly distorted. Having something with the same economic and legal standings but not called marriage generally seems fine by them.

The problem, I think, stems from the fact that we have mixed a religious and legal concept into one. I do realize that some people who fight against gay marriage do it with much vitriol and disgust for gay people, but has Mr. Eich done anything more than donated to a political cause he supports? I'm all for gay marriage, but we unfortunately have a complicated issue that cannot simply be painted as "He hates gay people and wants to deny them their rights" - Why? We don't know his true beliefs as he hasn't shared them with us, and he hasn't demonstrated any further malice. Now unless he starts using the bully pulpit of his CEO position to espouse hatred or otherwise attempts to hurt another group through his position, we should really just let it drop.

Besides, he created Javascript. We have more important things to hate him for.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7462670

Ignoring the fact that this person took part in doing that in favor of wondering why they did so misses the point by a number of light-years.

I am very much in favor of gay marriage and I think that denying anyones right under any circumstance is absolutely wrong. However we cannot simply look at issues from an ivory tower and attempt to gain any meaningful resolution.

It is not at all difficult to look at this issue and gain a meaningful resolution. It is only uncomfortable* for some people to do so because of dissonance with other views they hold dear.

Not in the least. If you had read and comprehended my initial posting you would realize I propose something of a compromise. We divorce the legal and economic portions of marriage from marriage itself. Couples don't get a "Marriage License" - they get a contract that they sign that grants them the legal and economic protections, rights, etc. and no more. If they want to hold some ceremony or attach any sort of significance to the event, let them. That is up to them.

Among the people I've ever spoken with, having a divorced concept of religious marriage and a legal coupling of people seems to be enough. For those that still oppose it? Well fuck 'em.

To return to the original point at hand. It is entire speculation of Mr. Eich's intentions. We haven't seen him crusade against "the gays", just oppose "gay marriage" - We don't know what his intentions. No one except for him and perhaps those close to him know. I'm simply offering a reasonable theory as to why he may have offered support to Proposition 8 in response to the theory that he, fundamentally, wishes to strip people of their rights.

If Eich wanted to attack gay people and strip them of their rights, well then Proposition 8 was the right vehicle for that attack. However it might well be the case that Proposition 8 offered an imperfect chance for him to preserve what he felt was an attack on a religious belief of his. Call the attack on rights collateral damage at that point.

By drawing the entire issue into a summary of Prop 8 itself and attempting to only focus upon that you are implying that his motivation is an attack upon others' rights. I am simply putting forth a counter-theory to that claim. Call it playing devil's advocate if you will. I just see it as attempting to give everyone a fair shake in what otherwise looks like an attempt to characterize someone you do not know based on a single point of data.

That's a bit misleading. At the time Proposition 8 was filed, gay marriage was not legal in California.

Proposition 8 was an initiave constitutional amendment filed in response to court cases striking down Proposition 22, an initiative statute with the same language as Prop. 8. Its true that there will still appeals pending in those cases when it was filed (though they were finalized before they Prop 8 qualified for the ballot.)

[1] Prop 22 had been struck down by district courts, and then appellate courts overruled the district courts. The state Supreme Court agreed in December 2006 to consider the issue. Prop 8 was filed October 5, 2007. The Supreme Court did not rule until May 2008.

And the enactment of Proposition 8 resulted in the effective annulment of marriages which had already taken place, and that annulment was not an accidental side-effect of Proposition 8's language.

It was not at all clear where the courts were going when Proposition 8 was introduced. It was unclear pretty much up until the state supreme court made its 4 to 3 decision.

They way California got gay marriage is seriously fucked up. They got the right result (gay marriage allowed), but the process was terrible. It ultimately came down to a standing issue and a district court decision, and a serious subversion of the initiative process. Basically, after Proposition 8 passed, the State decided not to defend it in court, and higher courts ruled no one else had standing to defend it, so the challengers essentially won by default.

That was a bad thing. One of the main purposes of the initiative process is to allow the people to bypass the State. It makes the initiative process a joke if the State can effectively void an initiative by simply deciding not to defend it.

The right was is the way we did it here in Washington. The legislature passed it, the Governor signed it, and when opponents got it on the ballot, voters approved same-sex marriage 54%-46%.

True.

> That was a bad thing.

I disagree. A litigant who has lost should be able to decide not to appeal, including where that litigant is the State.

> One of the main purposes of the initiative process is to allow the people to bypass the State.

Incorrect. It exists to allow the people to exercise the legislative power of the State (which they have, via the State Constitution, expressly reserved so that they can do so), not to bypass the State.

> It makes the initiative process a joke if the State can effectively void an initiative by simply deciding not to defend it.

They did defend it, vigorously, at the trial level. They decided not to appeal that decision after they lost at the trial level. Which is a rather common thing for litigants to do: appeals are expensive.

But the Ninth Circuit, after a ruling by the California Supreme Court, allowed the proponents to carry the appeal anyway, and the Ninth Circuit struck Prop. 8 down on the merits anyway.

The Supreme Court rules that the Ninth Circuit erred in granting standing to the proponents, but Prop 8 lost on the merits, not standing both at the trial and appellate level.

> The right was is the way we did it here in Washington.

Sure, its always better for a state to provide equal protection of the law itself rather than to be forced to by the federal judiciary. But the wrong in the latter isn't in the federal judiciary acting, or in state officials accepting that action before the appeals have reached the Supreme Court level, but in the State -- whether through elected officials or the people at large -- failing to provide equal protection of the laws in the first place.