Here’s a thought which I’m trying to flesh out, typing a little bit now, and hopefully more later:
I’ve been reading more about the firing of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, and in particular looking at the comment sections of articles, and this is what is clear to me:
In my mind, gay marriage is not an issue that stands alone, but connects to a larger issue of what the point of marriage is, or, specifically, of government recognition of marriage, and whether and what benefits that legal status should provide, why it should provide them, and who should benefit. Is marriage about providing a stable environment for child-rearing? Is marriage about providing a next-of-kin relationship? What should taxes look like for a married couple, vs. two cohabitating singles? Inheritance taxes? Welfare benefit eligibility? Are there demonstrable societal benefits for a specific governmental policy on marriage, or is this solely an institution that’s come down to us through history?
The fact that this is a complex issue means that reasonable people can disagree.
But Eich’s opponents don’t see it this way at all. In their view, there is no way a reasonable person can oppose gay marriage. There is no path to gay marriage opposition other than bigotry, and they grant bigots no quarter. Any manner of punishment is justifiable because Eich’s pro-proposition 8 support was gravely wrong and unjust. And, sure, similar punishment can’t be meted out on every Proposition 8 donor, due to it’s impracticality, but there’s nothing morally wrong with trying to do so.
So what I want to explore is this: what other types of political debates have taken this turn, this attitude of “my opponents are not people of goodwill but unjust and immoral.” Or has this always been the case and the Eich situation just highlights it?
Before I delve into this, I’ll ask: what do you think?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In