> Now, I don't know how important this whole thing is. To me, it looks like an awful lot of fuss over a very little thing. But let's say that it is, in fact, the worst thing ever to happen in the history of the universe.
It's not clear whether the little, inconsequential thing for you is Eich's donation or his ousting as a CEO.
If your response is "both", congratulations! You have already assimilated the biggest takeaway from this: avoid taking any sort of political position while working in this industry.
tl;dr: if this is a matter of equality, marriage itself (as a publicly recognized institution with associated privileges) is discriminatory and needs to be disestablished. If not, then it is completely legitimate to debate whether and on what basis those privileges should be granted.
In either case, the idea that it is morally abhorrent to oppose gay marriage is groundless.
It seems that for half the people on HN the conversation immediately stops with "this is about civil rights, therefore we should not tolerate Eich's intolerance".
But marriage itself is not a civil right. It is a pact between two people, a type of contract that we have inherited through a long series of civilizations, to which the modern state associates a number of privileges.
Right off the bat, if we consider any of these privileges a matter of equality before the law, then it is the institution of marriage itself that is discriminatory. Why should an unmarried person pay more taxes than a married person for the same income? Why cannot they name a friend instead of a spouse as a dependent for health insurance? And so on. How is it acceptable to discriminate against people who are not in a romantic relationship? Why are we tolerating this obvious injustice?
The answer is that, traditionally, these have not been seen as rights, but as privileges. The state grants these privileges to married people, at a cost for the community, because these is believed to be a public interest in the promotion of marriage. If that is the case, it is entirely legitimate to debate whether this public interest exists both in the case of heterosexual and homosexual couples, and furthermore, whether it still applies to anyone at all in modern society. A lot of the traditional justifications for public support of marriage were based on strongly differentiated gender roles, and it should be clear that they are no longer applicable.
As for new rationales of public interest, none have been advanced, other than "discrimination" - which, again, would be an argument for abolishing marriage, not for extending it.
In any case, this is a matter on which there is ample room for debate amongst well-intentioned and rational people. It is not right to nip the discussion in the bud by framing anyone who holds a different opinion as a bigot.
Marriage is not a civil right. It is a pact between two people, rooted in long-standing tradition, to which the state associates a number of privileges.
Right off the bat, if we consider any of these privileges a matter of equality before the law, then it is the institution of marriage itself that is discriminatory. Why should an unmarried person pay more taxes than a married person for the same income? Why cannot they name a friend instead of a spouse as a dependent for health insurance? Etc.
But traditionally, these have not been seen as rights, but as privileges that the state grants, at a cost for the community, because these is believed to be a public interest in the promotion of marriage. If that is the case, it is entirely legitimate to debate whether this public interest exists both in the case of heterosexual and homosexual couples, and furthermore, whether it even still applies in modern society. A lot of the traditional justifications for public support of marriage were based on strongly differentiated gender roles, and it should be clear that they are no longer applicable.
As for new rationales of public interest, none have been advanced, other than "discrimination" - which, again, would be an argument for abolishing marriage, not for extending it.
In any case, this is a matter on which there is ample room for debate amongst well-intentioned and rational people. I am appalled by the fact that so many people seek to nip any discussion on the subject in the bud when it's obvious that the have given the matter hardly any serious thought themselves.
Please see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533691