For John, BLUF: Zealots are always a problem. Nothing to see here; just move along.
I have been following this issue for the last day or so and was unsure about the point, but apparently Mozilla the firm has strong views on social issues♠ and has recently decided that Mr Brendan Eich, formerly the Chief Technology Officer and recently the Chief Executive Officer, did not conform to the position of the Board, at least with regard to gay marriage.
Late last evening (2203), Law Professor Glenn Reynolds published a blog post with the heading Gleichschaltung, and a reference to the issue:
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich forced to resign for supporting traditional marriage laws. To be clear, for holding, in 2009, the view of gay marriage that Barack Obama held, instead of the view that Dick Cheney held.Here is the announcement from Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker:
Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn't live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it's because we haven't stayed true to ourselves. We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. We must do better.I wonder where Mr Brendan Eich fits in here? Of course President Obama has evolved his position over the last five years and apparently Mr Eich has not. Now he is being run out of a job for his lack of evolution. Professor Reynolds says:
As someone who was publicly supporting gay marriage even before Dick Cheney, I find this degree of bullying and blacklisting repellent. I’m beginning to think that the only thing the left found wrong with the 1950s blacklists was that they were aimed at . . . the left.Professor Reynolds then quotes from and agrees with Mr Andrew Sullivan:♥
Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.Professor Reynolds:
Yeah, pretty much. Disgraceful.I am hoping that some "Paul Harvey" is going to show up and provide us with "the rest of the story". Otherwise this is pretty ugly and Un-American.
As fo rMr Eich, perhaps he prefers the key board to the board room.
Regards — Cliff
♠ Maybe somewhat like Hobby Lobby. But, to me Hobby Lobby will always be the name of a radar site in Thailand, helping us rendezvous with tankers, back in 1966.
♥ Of course Mr Sullivan, while gay, is a conservative and a practicing Roman Catholic. Probably even thinks about Lord Acton once in a while. (I am a big tent guy with regard to the Church.)
8 comments:
Considering how smart Eich is, I'm sure he will be OK.
Hope I'm still employable though.
Actually, the "rest of the story" as I have unearthed thus far...and unconfirmed...is that Mr. Eich resigned rather than compromise his principles. Those principles held that he could have a personal viewpoint that was his to hold and one that he never imposed on his workforce. In point of fact, Eich ensured that gay married couples got exactly the same benefits that hetero married couples receive. Perhaps now that they've ousted Eich, the traditional married couples will find they are losing their benefits while the LGBTs gain more.
This community has engaged in a very brutal and well funded agenda of "payback" for all the perceived rejection throughout the history of mankind. You may laugh and consider that to be a bit of hyperbole...but it is not. My gay brother and his "partner" are so adamant that the "straights need to pay" that it borders on the hysterical.
The next chapter will be reparations.
Neal,
No need to put quotation marks around your brother's companion.
Who going to pay and at what cost?
Because love isn't enough for them. Seriously, I have people in my life that I love but I'm not going to relinquish the understanding of marriage and kinship for them.
That's just weird.
The quotation marks are my little way of insincerity about the title...that and the older "companion." I for one am not bothered in the least by the imagined successes of the marital revisionists. I have not noticed a precipitous drop in real marriages so I doubt it is in jeopardy.
Throughout time, differing sexual proclivities have been a norm. In many if not most societies, those "unique" members were left to settle their differences with God. In my own experience, I grew up in a small NCW town with a heavily conservative population and many more churches than bars. The principal of the High School maintained a household with the biology teacher. Glenn Fleming was a brilliant physical chemist who had worked in key aspects of the Manhattan project, and suffered lifelong injuries from radiation exposure. Pierre Genelle was also peripherally associated with the Manhattan project and that is how they met. There was absolutely no doubt of the nature of their relationship and aside from cute quips no discussion either. Their home was always open to any high school student who wished to go there...and I don't know anyone who was ever "abused" or even "invited" to indulge.
While I served in the AF...in the early years....."gay" people were a norm...nobody abused them...and they didn't abuse anyone in return. Everyone knew who was what...and that was fine.
What has brought all this to a head is the interference of a few self appointed fringies who are intent on imposing their view on the rest of teh world....their view as the ONLY view.
"I have not noticed a precipitous drop in real marriages so I doubt it is in jeopardy."
Really? You're oblivious to the decline of marriage?
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/the-decline-of-marriage-and-rise-of-new-families/
Currently only half of children will be raised by both biological parents, compared to individuals who are now in their 70s about 90% were raised by both biological parents.
NCW is probably North Central Washington [State].
Note the reference to the Manhattan Project, which my mind read as Hanford.
Regards — Cliff
The "decline in marriage" point is sort of an apples and oranges kind of thing. Single parents may have not EVER been married or have been divorced. When one talks of traditional marriage, it is in comparison to gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transvestite, or "other" marriages. The issue of kids with only one parent is a whole other thread.
North Central Washington.
Actually, both worked at Los Alamos. Hanford was just being built....and the story of Hanford is another whole thread. I lived only about 15 miles in crow flight from the restricted area. As history has revealed, the "scientists" at Hanford used us for guinea pigs on numerous occasions, releasing various isotopes into the air "to see what happens." Some of the counties in WA still have elevated cancer rates. Today......Hanford is an ecological disaster....with millions of gallons of hot sludge and solid materials buried in the ground at Hanford....and most of it leaking badly....right toward the Colombia River.
Post a Comment