It's hard for me to see what principle the middle ground of "no more same-sex marriages, but current ones stand" could come from. It's an imaginable political compromise, but one that can't reflect the values of either side. (And one that's really hard to imagine remaining stable, though stranger things have happened. Obviously not in this case, though.) Either same-sex marriages should be recognized by the law or they shouldn't.
I didn't see his concern as insincere, but conflicted: he's friends and colleagues with people with whom he disagrees over a matter of public policy and who likewise feel strongly. That's pretty much electoral politics in a nutshell, isn't it? (Unless one is very careful about whom one associates with, anyway.) If you want the high-speed rail line, you can feel genuinely bad about the people who are going to lose their homes to it, while still thinking it passes overall cost-benefit. You can think it's right to send troops to Europe in WWII, while still finding it hard to look your isolationist neighbor in the eye when she gets the telegram about her son. Thinking a policy is right isn't incompatible with being aware of or regretting the pain it inflicts.
(If anything, the opposite-- "because this policy is good, I'll either deny any harm, or else assert that all affected deserve it good and hard"-- strikes me as more insincere. Though the net demonstrates to me daily that it's extraordinarily common across the spectrum.)
But just to be clear: am I correct that you believe he should only have been able to remain CEO if he declared his 2008 position wrong, and publicly came out in support of same-sex marriage?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2014-04-29 05:44 pm (UTC)I didn't see his concern as insincere, but conflicted: he's friends and colleagues with people with whom he disagrees over a matter of public policy and who likewise feel strongly. That's pretty much electoral politics in a nutshell, isn't it? (Unless one is very careful about whom one associates with, anyway.) If you want the high-speed rail line, you can feel genuinely bad about the people who are going to lose their homes to it, while still thinking it passes overall cost-benefit. You can think it's right to send troops to Europe in WWII, while still finding it hard to look your isolationist neighbor in the eye when she gets the telegram about her son. Thinking a policy is right isn't incompatible with being aware of or regretting the pain it inflicts.
(If anything, the opposite-- "because this policy is good, I'll either deny any harm, or else assert that all affected deserve it good and hard"-- strikes me as more insincere. Though the net demonstrates to me daily that it's extraordinarily common across the spectrum.)
But just to be clear: am I correct that you believe he should only have been able to remain CEO if he declared his 2008 position wrong, and publicly came out in support of same-sex marriage?