Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire

What a crazy idea, that it's somehow "fascist" to criticize a company based on the political activities of their CEO, but I can only assume "not fascist" to restrict the rights of minorities.

In the UK, civil partnerships were introduced for same-sex couples, which gave AFAIK the exact same legal rights and tax benefits as heterosexual marriage. However, campaigners for gay marriage said this was not good enough so the Prime Minister eventually pushed through a vote for gay marriage. So it seems the issue wasn't really about legal rights, that just comes along for the ride, it was more about using the word "marriage".

Similar thing when it comes to marriage ceremonies. Why lobby the state to try and force a religious institution to hold a same-sex marriage ceremony when the teachings of that religion are clearly against same-sex relationships? Can't we accept that in the diversity of opinions out there, some are like chalk and cheese? They simply don't go together so why force the issue and make everybody unhappy?

What I find interesting about this last point is that campaigners only focus on the Christian religion. It seems nobody wants to try and force mosques and synagogues to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Why is that?

You mentioned a key part of your moral defense:

    I've never said I was against the various domestic
    partnership rules that allow equal insurance, tax breaks
    and other benefits to committed partners.

That's where you and Eich differ. By donating to the Prop-8 campaign, he was directly supporting state-sponsored discrimination. It goes past personal beliefs when you take steps to strip others of their rights.

I agree with your reasoning that arbitrary advantages could be viewed as discrimination. I'd argue though that in those cases the goal is to cancel out disadvantages (directly or inderectly) directly related to inherent parts of a person (sex,handicap,race) or are benefits that a person can generally choose to acquire (old age,veteran,handicap;) ).

In the case of maternity leave it cancels out the propensity to fire/not hire a woman because she can get pregnant and is likely to be required to raise the kid for the first few months. Native cards to reduce inherent inequality produced by past events. Handicap to allow the handicapped to function to a level similiar to the non handicapped. Were as age benefits in theory apply to anyone who doesn't croak and presumably if they so desired. Veterans choose to serve the country and are compensated by society at large, admittedly you could argue not all people can join the military so fair point there. Food stamps, just lose all your money.

So onto gay marriage. Marriage is both a legal construct and a religious construct but the government can only recognize the legal part (seperation of church and state). Now the government is currently not recognizing that the couple can be together based on the sex of the partners which is something they can't change (reasonably(you could argue for separate drinking fountains on the basis that skin colour can be medically altered if you think this is reasonable)), you can argue that the marriage is for reproduction but sterile couples can get married, you could argue the child is adversely affected this has been shown not to be the case, you could argue friends will cheat the system but that can already be the case, the issue is the government has no reason to grant the various special right (tax,visitation laws, adoption) to a couple based on the sex of the people in the couple.

The key to that argument is that the government can't use the religious part of marriage as a basis for their decision. It's also worth noting that even if the government allows gay marriage that only guarantees you can get married in a courthouse, nothing about churches would be guaranteed (or in theory enforceable if they decided to say you could).

    The only hate that is being displayed here is by the
    anti-religious groups and individuals.

Aren't you forgetting the people trying to implement state-sponsored discrimination.

    God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how
    do atheists know they are really correct? how do
    religious people? At least the religious people have
    a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God
    and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple
    explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.

Insane presuppositions aside. The existence of God has nothing to do with equal rights under state laws. Prop 8 wasn't a referendum on whether or not God exists, it was a vote by a 'tyrannical majority' to strip the rights of the minority.

    So who are the real bigots here?

The people who try to deny rights to others.

    Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall
    down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness,
    help them up and continue the competition.

Or just don't actively work to harm other people, that will go much further.