>What is just and good doesn't change because you threaten me with the McCarthy Committee or a blacklist. I don't hold many political positions on whose hill I'm not comfortable dying, so bring it.
I think most people agree that morality isn't defined by consensus. We're not talking about morality in the objective sense, to the extent that such a thing exists. We're talking morality as perceived by others and the very real consequences that can flow from remaining consistent in one's moral perspective, while the rest of the community's view shifts. When that view turns against you, is it really fair to say that you shouldn't be allowed to do your job anymore? You may be OK with economic martyrdom if it comes down to it, but it's unlikely you actually want that to disrupt your life.
You're acting as if there is an objective test that proves your perspective is moral by definition. No such thing exists. That's why people disagree on these issues and it's why it's important that we maintain decorum and civility while disagreeing -- good, moral people can have differing opinions. Very few people are truly evil.
It's extremely unlikely that Brendan Eich would argue gay people are "not human beings", or even that they are "lesser human beings". That is not the premise of Prop 8. The fact that you can't see it any other way just shows how effective gay rights advocates have been at radicalizing a substantial portion of the population.
Homosexuality is a behavior. Gay marriage is the question of whether the government should subsidize or sponsor that behavior in the same way it subsidizes and sponsors heterosexual behaviors. These aren't questions of identities, they're questions of practicalities. People can disagree on them and still be good people.
You understand that only a few short decades ago, your position would've been the one that got people fired, right? It's cool that you think it's objectively right, and it's your prerogative to believe that. But you should acknowledge that differing viewpoints on these matters should be tolerated as a valid form of free political discourse. Free speech means we tolerate the contributions of our fellow citizens, even if we strongly disagree. I would suggest that depriving fellow citizens of income they're currently receiving specifically because they disagree on a political issue, whether it's gay marriage or the humor in dongle jokes, is not respectful of the basic freedoms that allow a democratic society to function.
This conversation is great supporting evidence for the argument for anonymity when discussing any significant controversial issue. PG's essay "What You Can't Say" addresses this also; unless your life's goal is to rehabilitate the particular social taboos of your time (that is, unless martyrdom is your goal), it's probably best not to get directly associated with that rehabilitation effort.