Well it's kind of obvious how it'd different from lynching, I hope.
I'm not so sure how it's different from McCarthyism though.
"The Company is infested with homophobes. I have here in my hands a list of names that were made known to the Board as being contributors to and members of anti-gay organizations and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the Company..."
McCarthy's "speech" wasn't illegal either. It's not a crime to inquire of people whether they were or were not a Communist.
And before you comment that this is different, but of a gay person's moral rights, keep in mind that Communists actually were on a designed program of the violent overthrow of capitalist societies in order to bring about international Communism.
To protect gay marriage, a first step is to defend the very legal framework that would make gay marriage possible in the first place, which is what McCarthy actions were (when taken at face value).
I think you draw the wrong lesson from McCarthyism.
If McCarthy had only gone after people that were actually trying to violently overthrow the US government and/or working for Stalin, history would look at him a lot differently. There were Soviet spies and they did a fair bit of damage. However, the people on his list were not in fact spies or communists and there was no good reason for him to believe they were.
Some of them certainly were Communists. I don't have a great nonpartisan link ready at hand, but here is wikipedia: "Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Victims_of_McCarthy...
> However, the people on his list were not in fact spies or communists and there was no good reason for him to believe they were.
The "list" he was holding wasn't a list at all. It was completely fake, made up for his own political grandstanding purposes.
Oh, sure, they eventually did come up with a real list after the witch-hunt got started but make no mistake that our problem with McCarthy was the witch-hunt itself, and the hysteria it generated. Oh sure, we all agree on "better dead than Red" but that wasn't what the HUAC ended up turning into.
No I wouldn't say that. Other problems included: too broad a definition of communist, guilt by association, the demand for loyalty oaths, and an unwillingness to take into account ideological changes over time.
However, I strongly disagree with the notion that there was no problem at all with people working for the State Department, the Army, or even in major media outlets, who actively supported, and were working towards, the violent overthrow of the US government in favor of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
If we look at the Eich situation, there were few concerns about accuracy, no guilt by association, and Eich had ample opportunity to disclaim his prior views/actions but declined to do so. So we are left with only the core question of whether or not there is something wrong with keeping avowed communists or bigots out of public positions.
Historically, one of the conservative/anti-communist gripes with McCarthy was that he left the public believing that any and all accusations of espionage within the government were baseless political smears, making it far more difficult to expose and prosecute the actual espionage going on at the time.
