What would they think of a comment like this, from a prominent British gay critic/writer ?
"Most of us... are content with civil partnerships and have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewe...
GLAAD has had lots of success in the past and done a lot of good, but now I feel like they are trying to find things to be outraged about, which has become tiring to hear about. When you're going after Dan Savage and Alec Baldwin for "saying the wrong things" when they are clearly LGBT allies I think it's time to reevaluate what's really important. Reading the one "gay news" site I follow sometimes feels like I've stepped into the Women and Women First sketches on Portlandia.
I don't really see big divisions other than with the GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans sorts. Most of gay politics seems to be centered on the civil rights issues, otherwise gay people span the political spectrum like any other group. Obviously they lean more towards the Democrats, but I know a fair number of gay people that are Republican.
As far as civil partnerships go, my impression (and also my opinion) is that most of us think that while it might be a step in the right direction, it's not really an acceptable solution at least in the US. There are a lot of rights civil marriage brings that civil partnerships don't.
I do personally think that if the federal government decided to just not recognize marriages as anything other than a religious ceremony and searched-and-replaced "marriage" with "civil union" in all the laws I would be fine with that.
Many of those people, myself included, probably don't buy the party line that you can completely divorce business decisions from deeply held personal beliefs.
Would you feel the same way if he'd donated to some far-right group that was against intermarriage between blacks and whites? What about something even more extreme? I don't see how the situation would be fundamentally different, or how your argument that this reaction is "too bad" would no longer apply.
Mozilla wasn't going to become some bastion for social counter-productivity just because one man, even in the CEO position, held a certain number of opinions; I trust him more than that, I trust Mozilla more than that, and I trust our ability to find out and handle that if it were indeed to happen.
I will point that, if you didn't trust him more than that, if you didn't trust Mozilla more than that, and if you didn't trust our ability to sniff out and handle such a situation, then I'm assuming your opinion would be different? If so, it's worth considering that your trust may not be shared by most people, and there are good reasons, in general, for skepticism. It's also worth considering that when the consequences are large, even a small risk may not be acceptable.