Well, what is there to say, really?
As has been reported in multiple places (see, among others, this Reuters report) Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich “resigned” from the job, a month into the position, subsequent to protests by gay rights groups, because, during the campaign for Proposition 8 (you remember that one, right? it banned gay marriage in California, until a judge overturned it, the state refused to defend it, and the Supreme Court ruled that no individuals had “standing” to appeal the ruling), he donated $1,000 to the campaign in support of traditional marriage.
This is the man who invented Javascript, and co-founded Mozilla, not just one of those types that goes from CEO job to CEO job. But now he’s been hounded out by the Thought Police. He has not done or said anything in his role at Mozilla, nor, indeed, from what I understand, anywhere, but the mere fact that he engaged in a legitimate political process on the other side of an issue from activists meant that he was persona non grata.
I don’t really have anything new or novel to say about this. There isn’t really much to say — this is all of a piece with the prosecution of the gay-marriage-filming-declining photographer. The people in power have so quickly seen so much success in terms of court victories and politicians lining up in their favor (and, let’s face it, Obama’s “evolution” in support of gay marriage was a matter of him checking which way the wind was blowing, not a result of deep soul-searching), that they’ve moved very quickly to a McCarthyish witch hunt. (Though I hesitate to use that term, since, from what I understand, McCarthy was vindicated when the KGB files were opened up.)
Actually — I take that back. This isn’t McCarthyism. This is more like the Puritans, who fled England because of persecution, but didn’t actually believe in religious pluralism. In their view, it’s perfectly fine for one group to impose beliefs on another group — so long as it was their own, and not someone else’s beliefs that were being imposed. Hence, when they had the chance, they were just as intolerant as the English.
Look — I know that my readers have a variety of perspectives on The Social Issues, and I generally don’t focus on them because it’s not in my skill set to write about them in an intelligent, non-confrontational, “let’s all talk about this” sort of way. I believe that it’s possible to say “the only reason for the government to get involved in marriage is to provide a stable home life for children” and work through the attendant issues, but these are difficult issues to address in this sort of forum, where it doesn’t take much to end up with “that’s not what I meant!” sort of arguments. (And I’m a middle child — I hate confrontation.)
But — wow — to get someone fired because of their beliefs? How far does this go? Do the protesters believe that traditional marriage opponents don’t deserve employment? May work, so long as it’s at a menial job? Or are they simply not permitted to reach the top levels?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In