I understand how the boycott is supposed to work and what changes its exercise would hopefully effect. My question is whether its appropriate to target a company for the private actions of the CEO. What if the boycott were so successful that Mozilla were to go out of business? I know that's to far-fetched to ever happen, but it's conceivable. Would it still be an appropriate step to take? What if the CEO resigns as a result of the boycott, but the company were harmed to the point it couldn't recover? How do answer an employee who has lost his job? Do you really want to live in a world where you are held morally responsible for the private actions of your boss? I sure don't.
I appreciate your responses and your commitment to your principles. I also understand the necessity of having a job... everything's a tradeoff.
Also for the record: IF CEO's couldn't use corporations to wield political power, it would be a non issue for me. Sadly we don't live in that world.
I definitely respect this, but I don't think anyone is making that charge... and given the general attitude of the population, if Eich were to attempt to do something like that, I don't think it would get very far without a huge outcry. Politicians have the same problem, which is why I support the idea of term limits, because there are far too many ways that incumbent politicians have unfair advantages over challengers... even if the candidate is not explicitly trying to utilize his office for an electoral advantage... and let's face it, most politicians aren't moral enough not to do that.
As long as marriage is a government contract it deserves equal protection under the law regardless of gender. The solution (as alluded to by the OP) is to remove all government recognition of marriage for everyone and return it to a church based institution with no meaning outside the church. As long as it remains a government institution, anyone that desires to use it's automatic facilities should be able to regardless of gender.
That might be the only solution that would be equitable to all parties.
Obama was opposed to Prop 8 because he felt a ban on gay marriage should not be enshrined in a constitution.
Thanks for pointing that out. That's an important distinction from simply being opposed to extending marriage to same-sex couples. Perhaps it was calculating, but nonetheless it helps clarify the President's position at the time.
Replying to myself:
Here's another question. Assuming you support the boycott, if you worked for Mozilla and Eich were selected, would you feel it is necessary to resign your job? If not, why not? If so, and if you work for a company, have you evaluated whether or not its CEO contributed to Proposition 8 or something similar? If not, then are you remiss in your moral and political duty? If so, then how long until you are living out in a shack in the woods? I figured out a long time ago that if I boycotted every company that took a stand I disagreed with, I wouldn't be able to do business with any large company. Obviously, you can't just throw up your hands and give up, but I really think this boycott is more likely to be counterproductive than not. However, that's just my opinion... and I have no problems with what Eich did. YMMV.
First link from Google:
Th problem is that he's tried to play all sides of the issue, and I imagine this was pretty transparent to all but the thickest voters. The states' right approach would be pretty reasonable in my view, except for the complication in this specific instance that states are required to honor contracts from other states. Nonetheless, it is the stand that I think passes muster with the Constitution and common sense.
It's certainly their right. I honestly don't think boycotts accomplish much, and as I've stated elsewhere, there are plenty of reasons to believe this boycott works _against_ the cause that it claims to support.
I think it's perfectly appropriate to being the President into it because he, at the time, held the exact same position on marriage, and he was very explicit and unequivocal about it. But no one is boycotting him for it, because he got elected twice. He's now changed his tune (which should have surprised no one), but in the intervening time, he was pretty much given a pass... probably because no one really took his claims seriously. Nonetheless, the GP's post was exactly right. When do you stop boycotting?
I sincerely believe Microsoft has done a lot of evil as a company, but I still use some of their products. Pretty much any big company, if you choose to look, will support some cause or belief that you will disagree with. Should you boycott all of them? Even if we back away relegating ourselves to living as hermits in our shacks in the woods and writing incoherent screeds against modern life, does this boycott even make sense?
I have nothing against the idea of speaking out against Eich, if you don't like what's he's done, in fact, you should. But assuming your boycott has a financial effect on the company... consider this: How many employees of Mozilla contributed _towards_ the cause of gay marriage? Does it matter? Has anyone asked that question? If Mozilla, as a group of people, is a net gain for a cause that is orthogonal to its purpose (which is to make software), and in this case, it's is quite likely, does it make sense to boycott it for a cause for which it has a net positive effect? Is it fair to punish all employees of the company, who did not have a choice in the selection of the CEO, for actions that the CEO took which have absolutely nothing to do with his role as an employee of that company? Is it responsible to boycott Mozilla unless you are sure that its existence as a company is actually harming the cause for which you stand? How could you ever even know?
There needs to be a public way to show them how wrong they are. A call for boycott is the easiest and cheap and pretty civilized.
But how is it convincing?
And if two men get divorced, do they just burn the house down because there's no woman to give it to?
No one cares. The real question is: Who gets custody of the X-Box?
When did marriage become a basic human right? Why is the government involved pro or con with it to begin with? Why is it only limited to two people?
The government originally became involved in marriage because the family is the building block of society and assisting in the foundation of stable families helps society function well. Now that marriage is seen as being all about and only about the people being married, and them being able to be labelled as such, that is no longer the case. Except prohibitions against polyamory to be next on the chopping block. People are already lining up. This is not about the ability to live your life the way you want.. because no one is preventing that now (and even where that is the case, the laws are being rapidly changed to fix that). It's now about having the ability to be validated by society. As the law traditionally stands, no one's rights are being violated, society just acknowledges that its social and biological bases are a net positive. There are already many, many prohibitions with respect to marriage: You cannot marry a relative, you cannot marry a child, you cannot marry more than one person at a time, and yet every one of these prevents people from living the life they want to live... and for good reasons, most of which also stem from the fact that these kinds of "marriages" are completely orthogonal to propagation of the race, and some are harmful in other ways as well. But it goes beyond that. Marriage is recognized and given a special status because it is the means by which society propagates itself, otherwise it's no different than a two-member club, and we all have the Constitutional right of free association.
The question I have is this: If any two people are able to declare one another as legal heirs to property, hospital visiting rights, joint tax returns, etc., what rights are being deprived if such a status is not called a "marriage"?
We have this silly notion just because someone doesn't 100% allign with the party, that some how they are 100% against it.
Welcome to politics in the 21st century. There is no debate. Non-conformity will be punished.
Obama stated explicitly that he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, period. I guess it's a sign of my cynicism that I didn't believe for a second he meant it, only that he calculated that was the position to take at the time that would benefit him the most.
It's funny. I first registered a
Why not? Established society has lots of problems. Here's a chance to try it again from scratch. Maybe they'll get it better. Maybe they won't. But maybe _our_ society will get better and maybe it won't. Either way, we have a lot of history to learn from... if we can.