http://discussingmarriage.org/
Those are the "best" and least bigoted arguments that the "con-" side can muster.
You're still in that echo chamber. I can get some sounds in, but they're distorted and attenuated. Here's one loud clue: marriage as a legally regulated institution has nothing to do with "love", or (contra Kennedy for the majority) "self expression". If that were all that's involved in marriage, it should not be subject to state coercion at all.
I'll leave it at that, and thank rmxt for dropping a link.
Remember, CA had its equivalent version of statutory marriage, called civil unions in other jurisdictions and called Domestic Partner law in CA.
Mark Leno among others said D.P. law was good enough, both when it passed and as amended. I agreed eventually, and stood firm. Fat lot of good that did me.
Members of the LGBT community are about 150% as likely as heteros to smoke. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/groups/lgbt.html
Without access to marriage and the rights it brings, children of same-sex couples had to go through legal ordeals, facing orphanage, if their biological parent dies despite another (now single) parent being available.
Other marriage benefits, especially hospital visitation and rights after a partner's death, weren't conferred to partners as they weren't legally recognized.
Civil unions were obviously at best a stepping stone. "Separate but equal" does not have a good history in this country.
You've heard these arguments before,
> Fat lot of good that did me.
so tell us. How have you been harmed by gay marriage's legalization?
In what way does your objection to your employees' having rights not disqualify you from the CEO position?
I agree on empirical suicide risks for people outside various norms. Prop 8 and marriage as regulated by law had ~zero to do with that. Canada and The Netherlands provide a decade+ data showing how little correlation. Look into it before spouting off to me.
Other marriage benefits, indeed all the ones also granted by the state of California to Domestic Partners, are not material. There are non-sexual relationships among long-term (grand-) mother/daughter and friendship-based dyads who deserved those positive rights. Shame on the majority in past decades for yoking these to marriage, but they also do not argue in the least for redefining marriage from its heteronormative (cis- or trans-, note well) basis.
You like to argue post-hoc about "a stepping stone", but that's not forthright. At the time, from Mark Leno et al., there was no such talk. It was a bait and switch as @JVLast wrote (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/you-will-be-assimilat...).
How am I harmed? The pretext for my leaving Mozilla was the outrage/status-display campaign, even if that can't possibly explain all the facts. In your view, I was harmed, and justly so -- but people disagree on justice, so in general, by your own rubriks, I was harmed.
(In case you are unaware, google CA 1101-1102 statutes. These were based on case law starting from "Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph".)
Beyond me, you already have telegraphed that it's un-PC, and possibly punishable by the full (lethal) force of the state, for someone like a creative/discretionary small business owner (baker, florist, printer, etc.) to demur from your point of view. And you've said it's hateful for parents to want to protect their children from propaganda.
Go on, prove me wrong: do you think there should be no legal sanction against bakers, florists, printers, restaurants, private schools, small businesses, and parents? Note the case law on side of printers, e.g., who need not be compelled to print materials to which they object. Note well this protects LGBT-owned print-shops.
Wait, what? You lost your job because of your homophobia. I demonstrated how homosexual individuals were harmed by lacking the right to marry. I asked how you were harmed by SSM becoming legal.
Beyond that, your cropped reply chopped everything I wrote about bakers, florists, printers, schools, parents. Respond to that, if you can.
This is why you saw such a violent reaction to your being placed as CEO. The fact that you didn't last a week means that you and the Mozilla board are so blind to the harm that your positions inflict on your own employees and their friends and family that the appointment itself was taken as an insult, and this is ignoring your continued refusal to see the harm that you are doing. And I say this as a huge Mozilla fan (see my comments elsewhere in this thread).
You made it clear that you will use a position of power, in this case money, to put down and insult those who work under you. Why should anyone have to put up with that? Mozilla employees are lucky to live in a time and industry when they could express their disapproval and have it acted upon in a positive way. I feel for others who are in less fortunate positions.