Holding an unpopular opinion that is all about increasing fairness and equality (racial equality, feminism, gay rights, etc.) is completely different than holding one that is about decreasing fairness and equality.
We cannot compare Eich's position of denying a freedom to some people to those of the people who stood for racial equality and feminism.
AFAIK, Eich donated $1000 to an organization that put the following amendment into the CA constitution:
"Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
That's not "denying a freedom", that's defining a population who will receive certain benefits. It's a normal part of democracy. Just like when a government body defines "poverty line" to mean $XXX income, for the purposes of excluding the (very real, legal and financial) benefit from some of the population, we don't call it denying "rich people's freedom" to food stamps.
Now, whether we should distribute food stamps or whether there should be benefits for married couples is another argument, but merely expressing an opinion on the definition is certainly not the same as denying someone an essential liberty.
Defining marriage as being between a man and woman isn't like giving food stamps to poor people.
The bottom line for me is that America is supposed to be a place of freedom and equality. If we're going to say that a man and woman can get married, then we have to say that two men or two women can also get married (assuming consenting adults, etc.).
Food stamps are different. They're about helping out people who are struggling to survive (at least that's the idea. Don't want to turn this into an argument about food stamps).
> Defining marriage as being between a man and woman isn't like giving food stamps to poor people.
I think you missed what I was trying to say, sorry I wasn't more clear.
> The bottom line for me is that America is supposed to be a place of freedom and equality.
Freedom, yes. Equality? That's tougher to quantify. America certainly has a notion of "inalienable rights", but is Marriage one of them? It doesn't seem so, because if you want to "marry" a 5-year-old, we don't call that a marriage. And we don't call polygamous relationships marriages, at least not for state purposes.
I'm claiming that the Prop 8 campaign is not a civil rights issue, because there are no "fundamental rights" being violated. There's nothing in the constitution that guarantees your right to be married.
Furthermore, the only actual harm that you can claim to have been done to you as a result of Prop8 is a denial of certain financial benefits. That's where the food stamp argument comes in. I'm not equivocating the two situations in a moral sense. I'm merely pointing out that we allow discrimination which we've deemed to be morally neutral for the purposes of allowing access to government benefits.
> If we're going to say that a man and woman can get married, then we have to say that two men or two women can also get married
We cannot compare Eich's position of denying a freedom to some people to those of the people who stood for racial equality and feminism.