Being African-American is biological and is part of DNA but sexual orientation, drug addiction, pedophelia, beasteality, incest are all choices based on attraction to that lifestyle. Please don't compare homosexuality to blacks, whites Chinese, French...don't lie and degrade someone's ethnic makeup to further your own agenda

skin color and where you stick your penis shouldn't be equal or related

choice and DNA are two fundamentally different things these are basic facts

He didn't get in trouble because of his opinion. He got in trouble because he actively participated in legislation that sought to remove existing rights from a protected minority. Which, was lated declared a direct violation of the US Constitution twice in federal court, and that ruling upheld upheld by the US Supreme Court.

I think you are equating to not liking gay marriage to trying to destroy the legal recognition of same sex families in civil law. It mean that people can be blocked from visiting a person's loved in the hospital, taking away their home with their partner dies, right to have their loved on live in the same country, etc. He is free not to like gay marriage all day long, but you can't support legislation attacking LEGAL rights and not expect to be held accountable.

He had to resign or Mozilla was doomed to fail as so many good people left. You don't have to be gay to recognize that everyone should be treated with dignity and fairness.

Actually, you are mistaken. Same Sex Couple DID have the right to marry and Prop 8 worked to take those rights away.  The whole US political system is designed to protect the minority from a tyrannical majority.  This is where the courts fixed with the populous eroded - a it was designed to do.

And Civil Unions do not include any of the rights (a good 5000 of  them) that come from a federal definition of marriage. It wasn't that long ago that the same rules applied to black and white couples and white and latinos couples in California - they weren't allowed to get married legally till the 1950s. The equal protection clause means we can't treat men and women differnetly ( like they have to let women vote) this ruling follows that guideline.

And NOBODY, like clergy, can ever be forced to before a ceremony.  US law separate Church and State which is now some Church get away with refusing to marry couples of mixed race.  Neither can force the other to do anything.  That's just a argument people to get people upset, but it isn't true at all.

i'd be more open minded to read what you wrote if it wasn't a giant wall of text

Well a group of "Virgins" , homosexuals, heterosexuals, Atheists, or Christians are groups based on LIFESTYLE choices. Groups of Africans, European, Mongols, Hawaiians etc are ethnic and DNA makeup... If you equate the two then I feel this is illogical.

Well getting married is a privilege and responsibility not a right...not every adult is in a state where he or she can bear the burden and responsibilities of married life (those in prison, being without financial means,being mentally unstable , etc).  Getting married is a privilege one has in society and in marriage one makes a vow to be faithful to another person.  Those who have children out of wedlock and refuse to raise their own children obviously don't subscibe to marriage as an endowed right.

being a "Parent" ( mother or father) is not a "Right" one holds regardless of situation, but is a privilege and responsibility one has to subscribe faithfully to.

if I beat up my or threaten my wife's life or refuse to raise or care for my children then I am unfit for the state of marriage...thus it is not a right but is a privilege and responsibility one must remain faithful and viligent too

Homosexuals are gay.

While I do detest it when people claiming to be "open minded" are, in fact, extremely close minded, I do not consider this case to be a good example.

Open mindedness is about how much you're willing to change your views when confronted with evidence and strong reasoning conflicting with what you believe in, and the contents of those views actually has very little to do with it.

In the example you gave, both sides could be open or closed minded, their stances on gay marriage is not important for that distinction, the distinction comes on how much they're open to changing their mind about such a thing.

Incidentally, I don't think open-mindedness is always a good quality to have, especially not on all issues. I regard myself to be close-minded on many issues, and am perfectly happy with that.

I agree and yes anyone who holds that position will be scrutinized, loved or hated.

Freedom of association is an essential human right under most philosophies including the natural law, which is the basis of the U.S Constitution. Calling that association whatever you want is also an essential human right under most philosophies including the natural law, which is the basis of the U.S Constitution.

Both of these are actually codified in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.