Like a lot of people, I was horrified to see the treatment accorded Brendan Eich, the now-former CEO of the tech giant, Mozilla.  Last week Mr. Eich was forced to resign as the CEO of the company he co-founded because it was revealed that he had contributed to the support of Prop 8-- the California initiative against same-sex marriage.  Apparently being against "gay marriage" is now a per se disqualifier for a position of importance in any company of any size in the tech world, and perhaps in any public company at all.

I can't think of another issue in the public square where taking a position against the views of the "chattering class" has such draconian consequences.  One can oppose abortion, or birth control, or the Affordable Care Act, or even contribute to Republican campaigns without being so unceremoniously booted out of a job and polite society.  The public lynching of Mr. Eich is truly shocking-- what ever happened to the ability of people to debate issues in a civilized way?

Of course, the answer to that question is that so-called "gay marriage" has now become a "civil right" in the minds of many and, like those who oppose equal rights among those of different races, people who oppose that "civil right" are viewed as morally-challenged, historical throwbacks or worse.  

But, of course, the issue of the "rights" of LGBT people is not the same as the issue of the "rights" of people of different races.  Racial characteristics are not the same as behaviors.  Yes, it is true that Christians, and pretty-much everyone else, got this wrong for centuries.  But Christians were also the leaders in changing things when it comes to racial bias, and virtually-all Christians now supprot the notion that we ought not to pass laws, or make decisions, on the basis of one's skin color or ancestry.  Those are physical characteristics we now realize cannot be part of a decisionmaking process if one is to make prudent decisions upholding human dignity.

But isn't sexual orientation just like skin color and ancestry?  At one level the obvious answer is "no," since same-sex couples cannot reproduce and pass along any "gay gene." But more fundamentally the answer is that sexuality is a much more nuanced issue, and the society -- any society-- has to draw lines around behaviors that are permitted and ones that are not.

You can go back to the Ten Commandments, and similar rules in other  ancient societies, to see people grappling with what is ok in this most-basic human area.  The rules have evolved and changed-- the Bible clearly speaks of men having multiple wives, for example, although every state now outlaws that conduct. We have rules about the age in which sexual consent can be given, and do not permit siblings to marry.  We still have on the books statutes forbidding sex outside of marriage, although we all know they are almost-never enforced.  

From time to time all these rules are subject to challenge and change.  You see that now in the context of bisexuals, about whom there have been several articles recently in The New York Times.  For them (and others, I suppose) should we allow marriage to involve three people? Or more? Should we bring back polygamy? Should we recognize civil unions of same-sex couples (as the Pope apparently proposed in Argentina) but not allow "marriage"?

The point of all of this is that the regulation of sexual conduct is a fundamental societal question.  If people who express a point-of-view that is contrary to the prevailing norm, at least in certain circles, do so only at the risk of their careers, there won't be much public debate on these issues any more.

I recognize that these are hot-button issues.  And I concede that the Church has sometimes supplied heat at a time when it should be supplying light.  But the radical same-sex marriage folks who took down Brendan Eich need to be told that by shutting down public discussion they are harming everyone, even themselves.  If we can't talk about these issues, we will never get to a point of social concensus.

Look what happened to the issue of abortion when the Supreme Court took that one out of the public square and made it solely the province of the courts.