Mozilla CEO Steps Down, Homophobes Cry Foul

[The Illusive Man]

For the sake of expediency, "A statement is harmful if it is intentionally created to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure a person's reputation or causes others to do so.” As per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan intent has to be proven.

Group Libel thus requires a group of persons to be intentionally targeted based upon common characteristic. In this case the common characteristic is an inherit characteristic (sexuality).

Alright then. If the statement in question is the one made by the donation ("gay people should not have the right to marry who they want"), then it does not shame or injure anyone's reputation. It doesn't fit the definition. If you have another statement in mind, what is it?

You have outright misrepresented the intentions of Yes on Prop 8. There is no excuse for that as the barrier to obtaining the relevant info is a Google search. This is going to be fun!


The Yes on Prop 8 campaign stated that their intention for political action is that gay marriage is a threat to American culture and society. How and why is that not intentionally crafted to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure the reputation of homosexuals as a group of people targeted by inherit characteristic?

California has a vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing.  Because only relationships between men and women can produce children, and children are most likely to thrive when raised by the father and mother who brought them into this world, opposite-sex relationships have the potential to further—or harm—this vital interest in a way that other types of relationships do not.  Therefore, government has distinguished opposite-sex couples and steered procreative unions into marriage.  As American jurisprudence has long recognized, marriage is the foundation of family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.ii Today, Californians and others must continue to protect and preserve traditional marriage to sustain American culture as we know it.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign stated that their intention for political action is that gay marriage causes: men to not take responsibility for their children, corrode marital norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity. How and why is that not intentionally crafted to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure the reputation of homosexuals as a group of people targeted by inherit characteristic?

But more profoundly, same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget. And, same-sex marriage would likely corrode marital norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign stated that their intention for political action is that gay marriage causes: prevents heterosexual people from marrying and increase rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation and divorce. How and why is that not intentionally crafted to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure the reputation of homosexuals as a group of people targeted by inherit characteristic?

Professor Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University, a same-sex marriage supporter, identifies same-sex marriage as “the most recent development in the deinstitutionalization of marriage.” He further states that if deinstitutionalization continues, the number of people who ever marry could fall further, and due to high levels of out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation, and divorce, people will spend less of their lives in intact marriages than in the past.iv

Other societies have experienced this firsthand. After the Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001, rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation and divorce were all exacerbated in the aftermath of redefining marriage.v

The problem being that Eich did nothing as CEO to give credence to the threat. In effect he's being punished not for what he did but what people thought he might do later on.

If you are going to shift the context to when he is CEO then you have forgotten what I posted all the way back on page 2. As CEO he did not separate his hatred from his position.

Baker, chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, of which the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary, wrote in the 29 March blog post: "I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality." Eich stressed that Baker's statement applied only to Mozilla as a corporation and foundation, rather than to its broader mission.

“There's a difference here between the company, the foundation, as an employer and an entity, versus the project and community at large, which is not under any constraints to agree on LGBT equality or any other thing that is not central to the mission or the Mozilla manifesto.”

He continued to entangle Mozilla through rationalization of his hatred as well.

Eich also stressed that Firefox worked globally, including in countries like Indonesia with “different opinions”, and LGBT marriage was “not considered universal human rights yet, and maybe they will be, but that's in the future, right now we're in a world where we have to be global to have effect”.

[Sigmaleph]

For the sake of expediency, "A statement is harmful if it is intentionally created to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure a person's reputation or causes others to do so.” As per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan intent has to be proven.

Group Libel thus requires a group of persons to be intentionally targeted based upon common characteristic. In this case the common characteristic is an inherit characteristic (sexuality).

Alright then. If the statement in question is the one made by the donation ("gay people should not have the right to marry who they want"), then it does not shame or injure anyone's reputation. It doesn't fit the definition. If you have another statement in mind, what is it?

You have outright misrepresented the intentions of Yes on Prop 8. There is no excuse for that as the barrier to obtaining the relevant info is a Google search. This is going to be fun!

As you have insisted before, intent has to be proved. Can you prove that Eich intended to make the same statements as protectmarriage.com and not that he solely agreed to the legal effects of prop 8? For example, is he elsewhere on record saying that he is (was?) against same-sex marriage for reasons X, Y, Z?

The problem being that Eich did nothing as CEO to give credence to the threat. In effect he's being punished not for what he did but what people thought he might do later on.

If you are going to shift the context to when he is CEO then you have forgotten what I posted all the way back on page 2. As CEO he did not separate his hatred from his position.

Baker, chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, of which the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary, wrote in the 29 March blog post: "I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality." Eich stressed that Baker's statement applied only to Mozilla as a corporation and foundation, rather than to its broader mission.

“There's a difference here between the company, the foundation, as an employer and an entity, versus the project and community at large, which is not under any constraints to agree on LGBT equality or any other thing that is not central to the mission or the Mozilla manifesto.”

His point is specifically that the organization has a clear pro-LGBT policy and the community is free to have whichever views they have. That seems a pretty clear separation of his personal views and his position as a representative of Mozilla.

[The Illusive Man]

As you have insisted before, intent has to be proved. Can you prove that Eich intended to make the same statements as protectmarriage.com and not that he solely agreed to the legal effects of prop 8? For example, is he elsewhere on record saying that he is (was?) against same-sex marriage for reasons X, Y, Z?

He specifically donated money to Yes on Prop 8 during its campaign and did not chose to withdraw the funds at a later date. His actions demonstrate his intent and willful agreement. The excuse of ignorance does not hold water because: their intentions are publicly available and he has a greater than normal understanding of the web as a platform of content.

The problem being that Eich did nothing as CEO to give credence to the threat. In effect he's being punished not for what he did but what people thought he might do later on.

If you are going to shift the context to when he is CEO then you have forgotten what I posted all the way back on page 2. As CEO he did not separate his hatred from his position.

Baker, chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, of which the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary, wrote in the 29 March blog post: "I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality." Eich stressed that Baker's statement applied only to Mozilla as a corporation and foundation, rather than to its broader mission.

“There's a difference here between the company, the foundation, as an employer and an entity, versus the project and community at large, which is not under any constraints to agree on LGBT equality or any other thing that is not central to the mission or the Mozilla manifesto.”

His point is specifically that the organization has a clear pro-LGBT policy and the community is free to have whichever views they have. That seems a pretty clear separation of his personal views and his position as a representative of Mozilla.

As stated by chairwomen Baker, "I want to speak clearly on behalf of both the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation: Mozilla supports equality for all, explicitly including LGBT equality and marriage equality." The Mozilla Corporation supported LGBT equality and marriage equality. Eich, as CEO, represents the Mozilla Corporation. By publically rationalizing his hatred as an unavoidable part of distributing Fiefox he has misrepresented the Mozilla Corporation.

Eich also stressed that Firefox worked globally, including in countries like Indonesia with “different opinions”, and LGBT marriage was “not considered universal human rights yet, and maybe they will be, but that's in the future, right now we're in a world where we have to be global to have effect”.

Secondly, the corporation, foundation and community are separate entities as made distinct by both Eich and Baker. He was CEO of the company, thus as CEO he could not speak on behalf of the foundation and community as they are separate. This is an example of Eich abusing his position as CEO to justify his personal hatred.

[I am lizard]

[Sigmaleph]

As you have insisted before, intent has to be proved. Can you prove that Eich intended to make the same statements as protectmarriage.com and not that he solely agreed to the legal effects of prop 8? For example, is he elsewhere on record saying that he is (was?) against same-sex marriage for reasons X, Y, Z?

He specifically donated money to Yes on Prop 8 during its campaign and did not chose to withdraw the funds at a later date. His actions demonstrate his intent and willful agreement. The excuse of ignorance does not hold water because: their intentions are publicly available and he has a greater than normal understanding of the web as a platform of content.

Fair enough. You win.

[m52nickerson]

Hate speech is not speech that advocates laws the may take away rights from people, harm them you might say.  Hate speech is speech that may incite physical violence against a group or might cause a violent reaction.  This is laid out by the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio. 

So a broad definition of harm is incorrect, Sigmaleph was right when she said it was not hate speech because he was not calling for people to hurt gay people.

[The Illusive Man]

Hate speech is not speech that advocates laws the may take away rights from people, harm them you might say.

You are confounding advocacy with libel in an attempt to flat out ignore libel and group libel. As advocacy is not inherently a method of defamation while libel is.

Hate speech is speech that may incite physical violence against a group or might cause a violent reaction.  This is laid out by the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Your attempt to restrict harm to bodily harm is outright disingenuous.

Secondly, hate speech is speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

[m52nickerson]

Hate speech is not speech that advocates laws the may take away rights from people, harm them you might say.

You are confounding advocacy with libel in an attempt to flat out ignore libel and group libel. As advocacy is not inherently a method of defamation while libel is.

Hate speech is speech that may incite physical violence against a group or might cause a violent reaction.  This is laid out by the US Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Your attempt to restrict harm to bodily harm is outright disingenuous.

Secondly, hate speech is speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

I do not have a clue what you are talking about when bringing up libel.  Someone advocating to keep same-sex marriage is not making false statements.  It is like you are simply throwing words out there.

Now I'm not trying to restrict harm.  It is pure and simple fact that hate speech is defined in law by speech that is calling for physical violence against a person or group.  The definition you posted is a broader definition of hate speech which the link you posted states, "....but this would usually not be a hate crime, because of freedom of speech laws."

Now if you want to use that definition fine, I'm not going to argue semantics with you.  Just understand that what Eich did is not hate speech by any legal definition.  He broke no laws.

[Cerim Treascair]

Minor addendum:  hate speech laws do not exist in the USA, for that matter.

[m52nickerson]

Even in places were hate speech is illegal I would challenge Illusive Man shoe were Eich's donation would qualify as such speech.

In the US hate speech laws would have to against speech that is inciting imitate violence.  They would be redundant because most states have laws against inciting violence.

[The Illusive Man]

I’m back, friggin weather knocked out power and communication.

I do not have a clue what you are talking about when bringing up libel.  Someone advocating to keep same-sex marriage is not making false statements.  It is like you are simply throwing words out there.

You flat out willfully ignore the all the publically stated, WARGARBLE political causes for Yes on Prop 8. That campaign specifically targeted people based upon an inherit characteristic (sexuality). I will repost their publicized campaign statements:

(click to show/hide)

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign stated that their intention for political action is that gay marriage is a threat to American culture and society. How and why is that not intentionally crafted to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure the reputation of homosexuals as a group of people targeted by inherit characteristic?

California has a vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing.  Because only relationships between men and women can produce children, and children are most likely to thrive when raised by the father and mother who brought them into this world, opposite-sex relationships have the potential to further—or harm—this vital interest in a way that other types of relationships do not.  Therefore, government has distinguished opposite-sex couples and steered procreative unions into marriage.  As American jurisprudence has long recognized, marriage is the foundation of family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.ii Today, Californians and others must continue to protect and preserve traditional marriage to sustain American culture as we know it.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign stated that their intention for political action is that gay marriage causes: men to not take responsibility for their children, corrode marital norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity. How and why is that not intentionally crafted to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure the reputation of homosexuals as a group of people targeted by inherit characteristic?

But more profoundly, same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget. And, same-sex marriage would likely corrode marital norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign stated that their intention for political action is that gay marriage causes: prevents heterosexual people from marrying and increase rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation and divorce. How and why is that not intentionally crafted to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure the reputation of homosexuals as a group of people targeted by inherit characteristic?

Professor Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University, a same-sex marriage supporter, identifies same-sex marriage as “the most recent development in the deinstitutionalization of marriage.” He further states that if deinstitutionalization continues, the number of people who ever marry could fall further, and due to high levels of out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation, and divorce, people will spend less of their lives in intact marriages than in the past.iv

Other societies have experienced this firsthand. After the Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001, rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation and divorce were all exacerbated in the aftermath of redefining marriage.v

Now I'm not trying to restrict harm.

By trying to limit harm to bodily harm you are restricting what can be considered harm. Thus you are disingenuous.

It is pure and simple fact that hate speech is defined in law by speech that is calling for physical violence against a person or group.

Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability;

Nice selective reading you got there, a shame you missed the important info. Fret not, I bolded and quoted it for you. Tell me how and why are the above spoilered examples not intended to degrade, intimidate or are prejudicial actions?

If you try to ignore all of the above and just stick with the California Penal Code you still lose.

Existing law requires local law enforcement agencies, at the direction of the Attorney General and subject to the availability of adequate funding for the Department of Justice, to report to the Department of Justice, in a manner to be prescribed by the Attorney General, any information that may be required relative to any criminal acts or attempted criminal acts to cause physical injury, emotional suffering, or property damage where there is a reasonable cause to believe that the crime was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim's race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability.

How and why does the specific targeting of people by inherit characteristic (sexuality), as exemplified by the above spoilered section, not cause emotional suffering?

The definition you posted is a broader definition of hate speech which the link you posted states, "....but this would usually not be a hate crime, because of freedom of speech laws."

Oh m52nickerson you never fail to selectively, willingly ignore content and context.

For example, a group may use hate speech in an attempt to discriminate: protesters carrying signs that say “God Hates Gays,” but this would usually not be a hate crime, because of freedom of speech laws.

Tell me how and why is Yes on Prop 8 a protest? How are 3rd parties donating money to a political campaign a protest?

[m52nickerson]

I’m back, friggin weather knocked out power and communication.

I do not have a clue what you are talking about when bringing up libel.  Someone advocating to keep same-sex marriage is not making false statements.  It is like you are simply throwing words out there.

You flat out willfully ignore the all the publically stated, WARGARBLE political causes for Yes on Prop 8. That campaign specifically targeted people based upon an inherit characteristic (sexuality). I will repost their publicized campaign statements:

(click to show/hide)

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign stated that their intention for political action is that gay marriage is a threat to American culture and society. How and why is that not intentionally crafted to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure the reputation of homosexuals as a group of people targeted by inherit characteristic?

California has a vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing.  Because only relationships between men and women can produce children, and children are most likely to thrive when raised by the father and mother who brought them into this world, opposite-sex relationships have the potential to further—or harm—this vital interest in a way that other types of relationships do not.  Therefore, government has distinguished opposite-sex couples and steered procreative unions into marriage.  As American jurisprudence has long recognized, marriage is the foundation of family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.ii Today, Californians and others must continue to protect and preserve traditional marriage to sustain American culture as we know it.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign stated that their intention for political action is that gay marriage causes: men to not take responsibility for their children, corrode marital norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity. How and why is that not intentionally crafted to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure the reputation of homosexuals as a group of people targeted by inherit characteristic?

But more profoundly, same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage. It would undermine the idea that children need both a mother and a father, further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget. And, same-sex marriage would likely corrode marital norms of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity.

The Yes on Prop 8 campaign stated that their intention for political action is that gay marriage causes: prevents heterosexual people from marrying and increase rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation and divorce. How and why is that not intentionally crafted to seriously shame, ridicule, disgrace or injure the reputation of homosexuals as a group of people targeted by inherit characteristic?

Professor Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University, a same-sex marriage supporter, identifies same-sex marriage as “the most recent development in the deinstitutionalization of marriage.” He further states that if deinstitutionalization continues, the number of people who ever marry could fall further, and due to high levels of out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation, and divorce, people will spend less of their lives in intact marriages than in the past.iv

Other societies have experienced this firsthand. After the Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001, rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, cohabitation and divorce were all exacerbated in the aftermath of redefining marriage.v

Now I'm not trying to restrict harm.

By trying to limit harm to bodily harm you are restricting what can be considered harm. Thus you are disingenuous.

It is pure and simple fact that hate speech is defined in law by speech that is calling for physical violence against a person or group.

Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability;

Nice selective reading you got there, a shame you missed the important info. Fret not, I bolded and quoted it for you. Tell me how and why are the above spoilered examples not intended to degrade, intimidate or are prejudicial actions?

If you try to ignore all of the above and just stick with the California Penal Code you still lose.

Existing law requires local law enforcement agencies, at the direction of the Attorney General and subject to the availability of adequate funding for the Department of Justice, to report to the Department of Justice, in a manner to be prescribed by the Attorney General, any information that may be required relative to any criminal acts or attempted criminal acts to cause physical injury, emotional suffering, or property damage where there is a reasonable cause to believe that the crime was motivated, in whole or in part, by the victim's race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or physical or mental disability.

How and why does the specific targeting of people by inherit characteristic (sexuality), as exemplified by the above spoilered section, not cause emotional suffering?

The definition you posted is a broader definition of hate speech which the link you posted states, "....but this would usually not be a hate crime, because of freedom of speech laws."

Oh m52nickerson you never fail to selectively, willingly ignore content and context.

For example, a group may use hate speech in an attempt to discriminate: protesters carrying signs that say “God Hates Gays,” but this would usually not be a hate crime, because of freedom of speech laws.

Tell me how and why is Yes on Prop 8 a protest? How are 3rd parties donating money to a political campaign a protest?

The statements made by the prop 8 supporters are against same sex marriage, not homosexuals.  Therefore not libel.

Supporting bans on same sex marriage is not hate speech for one because again it is not against homosexuals, it is against same sex marriage.  a ban on same sex marriage does not state homosexuals can't marry, they state two people of the same sex can't marry.  This distinction is important because federally sexual orientation is not protected trait, but sex is.  That is why there is a chance to win in the courts.

As for the California statute donating or supporting Prop 8 is not hate speech because it is not a criminal act.  The statute state that any criminal act or attempted act which may cause emotional suffering.  So the act has to be criminal first, donation to political campaigns is not criminal.

I did not ignore your posted definition of hate speech, I outright rejected it.  As I said anywhere you have hate speech laws they almost always indicated that the speech must result in or call for physical violence.  Not the broader term harm.  So harm and what it is or is not does not come into it.  The places where they do use broader terms of harm are places were hate speech laws are geared to protect the religious.

...and donating to political campaigns is seen by the Supreme Court as free speech, just as protests are.

 

[The Illusive Man]

The statements made by the prop 8 supporters are against same sex marriage, not homosexuals.  Therefore not libel.

The political, publicized statements that same sex marriage is destroying American society, culture and other WARGARBLE explicitly targets homosexuals because only homosexuals are married by same sex marriage. Their WARGARBLE explicitly identifies couples through sexuality. TL:DR WARGARBLE marriage is only for making babies.

California has a vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing. Because only relationships between men and women can produce children, and children are most likely to thrive when raised by the father and mother who brought them into this world, opposite-sex relationships have the potential to further—or harm—this vital interest in a way that other types of relationships do not.  Therefore, government has distinguished opposite-sex couples and steered procreative unions into marriage. As American jurisprudence has long recognized, marriage is the foundation of family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.ii Today, Californians and others must continue to protect and preserve traditional marriage to sustain American culture as we know it.

And they care for nothing else.

At the same time, societies have never required that would-be spouses actually have or form “satisfying relationships” and “deep emotional bonds and strong commitments,” which are the reasons that same-sex marriage proponents often give for equal recognition of their unions.

a ban on same sex marriage does not state homosexuals can't marry, they state two people of the same sex can't marry. This distinction is important because federally sexual orientation is not protected trait, but sex is.  That is why there is a chance to win in the courts.

That’s a whole lot of cognitive dissonance you got there. Let see how deep this rabbit hole goes. Tell me, without any homosexuality why would two people of the same sex marry? Oh and please try and falsely equate civil unions with marriage too.

As for the California statute donating or supporting Prop 8 is not hate speech because it is not a criminal act.  The statute state that any criminal act or attempted act which may cause emotional suffering.  So the act has to be criminal first, donation to political campaigns is not criminal.

I did not ignore your posted definition of hate speech, I outright rejected it.  As I said anywhere you have hate speech laws they almost always indicated that the speech must result in or call for physical violence.  Not the broader term harm.  So harm and what it is or is not does not come into it.  The places where they do use broader terms of harm are places were hate speech laws are geared to protect the religious.

And you willfully ignore the difference between hate speech, hate crime and hate motivated act too. Wow.

[Canadian Mojo]

That’s a whole lot of cognitive dissonance you got there. Let see how deep this rabbit hole goes. Tell me, without any homosexuality why would two people of the same sex marry? Oh and please try and falsely equate civil unions with marriage too.

Normally, I'd stay out of this and let you two go at it, but I just couldn't let this one go by without comment.

It's not about cognitive dissonance, it's about semantics. Hate speech laws are about how you say something more that they are about what you say. Say to your boss "I think this is an ill-conceived idea" or say "I think you're fucking stupid" and see which get's you fired.

[m52nickerson]

The statements made by the prop 8 supporters are against same sex marriage, not homosexuals.  Therefore not libel.

The political, publicized statements that same sex marriage is destroying American society, culture and other WARGARBLE explicitly targets homosexuals because only homosexuals are married by same sex marriage. Their WARGARBLE explicitly identifies couples through sexuality. TL:DR WARGARBLE marriage is only for making babies.

California has a vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing. Because only relationships between men and women can produce children, and children are most likely to thrive when raised by the father and mother who brought them into this world, opposite-sex relationships have the potential to further—or harm—this vital interest in a way that other types of relationships do not.  Therefore, government has distinguished opposite-sex couples and steered procreative unions into marriage. As American jurisprudence has long recognized, marriage is the foundation of family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.ii Today, Californians and others must continue to protect and preserve traditional marriage to sustain American culture as we know it.

And they care for nothing else.

At the same time, societies have never required that would-be spouses actually have or form “satisfying relationships” and “deep emotional bonds and strong commitments,” which are the reasons that same-sex marriage proponents often give for equal recognition of their unions.

a ban on same sex marriage does not state homosexuals can't marry, they state two people of the same sex can't marry. This distinction is important because federally sexual orientation is not protected trait, but sex is.  That is why there is a chance to win in the courts.

That’s a whole lot of cognitive dissonance you got there. Let see how deep this rabbit hole goes. Tell me, without any homosexuality why would two people of the same sex marry? Oh and please try and falsely equate civil unions with marriage too.

As for the California statute donating or supporting Prop 8 is not hate speech because it is not a criminal act.  The statute state that any criminal act or attempted act which may cause emotional suffering.  So the act has to be criminal first, donation to political campaigns is not criminal.

I did not ignore your posted definition of hate speech, I outright rejected it.  As I said anywhere you have hate speech laws they almost always indicated that the speech must result in or call for physical violence.  Not the broader term harm.  So harm and what it is or is not does not come into it.  The places where they do use broader terms of harm are places were hate speech laws are geared to protect the religious.

And you willfully ignore the difference between hate speech, hate crime and hate motivated act too. Wow.

No the speech against same sex unions does not specifically target homosexuals.  In a state were same sex marriages are allowed can two heterosexual men get married?  Yes.  Would they is a different matter.  That is why say that same sex marriages are destroying society targets the marriage, not the individuals. 

See if it was not for the distinction between same sex marriage and homosexuality court would not be ruling for same sex marriage.  They do so because it is a person's sex which can't be discriminated against.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

I'm am not ignorant of the differences of hate speech and hate crimes.  You seem to be.  I asked you before if you could post a hate speech law from anywhere that would make donation to anti-same sex marriages groups a hate speech crime, or even talking in opposition of same sex marriage.  You have yet to do so because you can't.

You are simply trying to use a very broad definition of hate speech as a tool of rhetoric.  You are trying to vilify a person you don't agree with.  Perhaps you are taking a page out of the right's wings book.