his support of a political position
The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.
The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.
There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight.
I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist issue a fiat.
Some other states moved to legally recognize same sex unions via the legislative process and in those states, once the law passed, the fight was over.
Why is this distinction important? Because once we set the precedent that it's a "human rights issue" to be able to marry whomever you wish, what is to stop the FLDS church from suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages?
Once you accept the premise that marrying whomever you wish is a "human rights issue", there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage.
In 2004, Karl Rove maneuvered "anti-marriage" amendments to voted on in many states during the presidential election season. So, the republican establishment riled up all the religious nutters to vote both for bush and, while they were there, why not vote your bible faith to restrict rights for actual humans too?
That's our legislative process—easily manipulatable, corruptible by riled up motivated voters who don't actually represent the majority.
So, we fix wrong decisions of the people with checks and balances. We dissolve the tyranny of the many and restore balance to the force.
suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage.
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Is there any downside to multi-marriage besides it just making you feel squicky?
Where will the money come from to pay for Elder Smith's four wives and their fifteen children? Everyone else's premiums, of course!
But then, that only strengthens the case for "Single Payer", right?
A polyamorous relationship means three or more people have managed to form a happy, loving partnership with each other. If they've managed that, why shouldn't they get married?
Obviously, this doesn't validate marriages to children or pets, since one or more parties are incapable of informed consent.
My friends are generally liberal, so I don't know many people who would vote for Prop 8 for religious reasons. That said, of the people who did support Prop 8, all of them had the same reason as you, and without fail, all of them wanted to see same-sex marriage become the law of the land.
Which ended for me the notion that supporting Prop 8 meant you hated gays and deserved to be silenced, run out of a job, and alienated by all right thinking people.
Thanks for sharing.
And yet, applying 21st century moral values to the 18th century is completely meaningless, as every historian who studied these time periods will tell you.
Except Prop 8 was five years ago and not 200 years ago? I know I'm sure not absolved of my mistakes (or even debt) from five years ago. Public activism during one's lifetime is on the table as a factor for judging that someone.
Now, you can try to argue whether the decisions of the person are actually what the person believes or if they were just following to feel like they belong or feel important or be around their _other_ bigoted friends. Either way, it doesn't show great capacity for independent thought.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with private parties exacting revenge on you for saying, doing, or promoting objective wrongness.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of equality of validness of opinion.
"Freedom of speech" is a concept that is bigger and more far reaching than the government. If someone threatens to punch you in the face for saying something that he doesn't want you to say, he has violated your freedom of speech.
If your employer fires you for something that you said outside of work and separate from your duties as an employee, that employer has also violated your freedom of speech. The notable difference being that in most circumstances, there's nothing illegal about that.
The point that I'm making here is that it's absolutely possible to suppress suppress freedom of speech without violating the law.
In contrast being shouted down at a meeting or losing your job is common and not protected. If your employer doesn't want to support your opinions, they are free to stop paying you. That is a freedom too.
I think it is very important that bosses embrace this view too, because otherwise you just get a lot of sycophantic yes-men, an echo chamber. The correct approach is to let everyone be free to voice their opinion before the decision is made: if you don't want their opinions, then what are you paying them for? Once a decision is made it is necessary for everybody to work towards that, but making a good decision requires lots of input, and those who disagreed with the final choice shouldn't be punished in any way, otherwise there quickly won't be any disagreement.