What we are seeing here is a person being harshly punished for his campaign donations. Basically for his political opinion (and an opinion that passed with a strong majority in California to boot).

This is enormously destructive for democracy. It's McCarthyism of the highest level. Both the fact and its staunch defence by many in the forums.

Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I know of, at least.

Why would the gay community ever be tolerant of someone who supports anti-gay legislature? I mean, come on, it seems pretty rational for LGBT supporters to be intolerant of individuals who want to prevent them from having the same legal rights as heterosexuals. It's not as if there is some reasonable excuse to oppose gay marriage, this whole thing exploded because the position is unambiguously indefensible. That doesn't mean it's the worst thing in the world, you just come off as a petty asshole when you try to prevent people from living their lives in a way that has absolutely no affect on your own life whatsoever.

I remember it just fine. The people exercised their right to boycott, Phil Robertson exercised his right to stand by his beliefs, A&E exercised their right to capitulate to the outrage, and then they exercised their right to reverse their own decision. I don't see the problem. The same thing played out in this case except that as of yet, Mozilla hasn't reversed their decision.

This is unashamedly wrong. Federal law in the US currently delegates this decision to the States.

And? My point is that the law is morally indefensible. What practical purpose does prohibiting gay marriage serve except to arbitrarily stigmatize a class of people? Nobody materially benefits by prohibiting gay marriage, it doesn't free up more marriage slots for the rest of society, it just unnecessarily complicates the private lives of gay couples who want to be married.

Because the rights of single old and young people woudl be irreversibly harmed by their existence.

How? Heterosexual single people can get married whenever it suits them, but for some reason gay couples shouldn't be allowed the same freedom, because... why?

Why is that a problem? People have the right to boycott whatever they want, it's really one of the only peaceful and effective forms of dissent available to ordinary citizens. That "difference of opinion" manifested itself as a financial contribution to an anti-gay cause, what kind of reaction would you expect from those who were exclusively targeted by said law?

a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it's not just a bunch of wackos

And then it was overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional, so maybe it is "just a bunch of wackos". Either way, I don't think the fact that a law passes lends any credibility to the substance of the law. To quote the court:

DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.

In other words, the only practical effect of the law is to disparage and stigmatize homosexuals.

Anyway: I'm unclear why it's inappropriate to pass judgment on people based on their political speech.

Also, you're playing that trick with the word "intolerance" that people sometimes play... There's "racial and sexual intolerance," which should be weeded out. It has no place in our society. But there are all sorts of "intolerances" which are great! For example: We should be intolerant of things which drag people down and ruin lives. Disease. Scientific illiteracy. Lack of the freedom to marry whomever one wishes. Bigotry.

The ways you are defending are the textbook definition of bigotry. I agree that they shouldn't have a place in society.

As someone else put it once, taking a political position publicly takes a certain amount of civic courage. I am in complete disagreement with everything you say, which I consider alarmist, apologist, and simply wrong.

Actually, voting for Prop 8 does not in any way meet the threshold test of "bigot". To qualify as a bigot, you have to have an "unreasonable" intolerance of others perspectives. Merely taking a good faith position on the opposite side of an(y) issue does not evidence "biggotry". Just the opposite: by proposing that any opposition to your ideas is insensible, you define yourself as a bigot.

Now, step back. Every civil right in the US is codified in law. Every law was wirtten by human beings with mistakes, errors, omissions, and horse-trades. Every law put on the books in the US is at some level "impure" and "ugly".

The types of civil rights involving prop 8 are like the civil rights act of 1965, and the OSHA and Employment laws passed than creat "protected classes". That is to say, these civil rights are voted on by the public. They do not exist in the Constitution. If they did, we would not have to pass laws called "civil rights act of xxx".

The point of all this is that every law needs a debate. Every law needs to be (imperfectly) written. To have votes you need to have opposing views aired to test different options. Just like working in business. YOu cannot be an effective leader if you dis-allow all debate.

But that's what being a bigot is. That's what you are saying you are by proclaiming all people who disagree with you are unreasonable. That is not a teneble position: its logically false. The other side of the issue may be wrong, but only in very rare cases would it ever be "unreasonavle".

Propo 8 may have been wrong, but to assume that each and every single person in the majority of voters who voted it into law was "unreasonable" is absurd. Some? Perhaps, but you could never justfy the inference without specific knowledge (which in this case is not on the public record).

Mozilla's actions today will have a chilling effect on free speech. Make no doubt about it. Every piece of software you use online capable of tracking your political views is now fair game. There is no reason to treat public information as distinct from private information, if your standard is as you've laid it out.

Supporting traditional marriage does not mean opposing equal rights for gay folks. Traditional marriage permits a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex (which makes no sense to a supporter of modern pseudomarriage).

The key thing is that traditional marriage isn't about finding temporary emotional fulfilment, while modern pseudomarriage is. Modern pseudomarriage is a convenience, a way to find some companionship and engage in sexual activity while receiving some economic benefits, not an incubator for the formation of a family and a bloodline.