Instead of the long contemplative post on how this move is the next logical step in a career of working in Identity Management, I’ll keep it short. I start work next Monday, February 1st, and I’m a bit pre-occupied this week with getting moved from Portland, Oregon down to Half Moon Bay, California.

I expect great things from our team in 2010, and so should you.

Moving to Portland

Neither Elisabeth nor I have fully adjusted to the way of life in San Francisco (we currently live in SoMa, right next to downtown). I’m sure we could find something quieter in other parts of the bay area, but for us it’s still not the same. I’ve found that I click much better with the Portland Tech scene personality-wise, and it’s really hard to beat the beautiful scenery of the Pacific northwest, so we’ll be moving to Portland at the end of next month. We have many new and old friends in the Portland area, and are terribly excited to reconnect with a few in particular and get grounded in a good church home. While I fully expect for my work to remain relatively fast paced, we’re just looking to slow down some of the other aspects of our life.

New Work

I am also in the process of looking for new work, starting immediately. As you can read in the official announcement, Vidoop was forced to layoff a considerable portion of the staff, myself included. Times are tough right now, and they’re doing what they need to do in order for the company to weather this current economic storm. Vidoop really was a dream job for me, in every sense of the term, and I will miss working alongside a bunch of really talented developers. Hopefully our move to Portland will mean I’ll have the chance to work with some of them again in the future.

At this point, I’m not entirely sure where I’ll end up after this. Ideally, I’d like to stay in the identity space, continuing to work on technologies like SAML, OpenID, OAuth, XRD, etc. That’s where both my interest and experience lie, and where I’d be most effective… I still have a lot I’d like to offer to that space. I do have a couple of opportunities I’m pursuing right now, but I’m also curious to see what else might be out there. I’ve posted an updated resume in case any one out there has my next dream job waiting for me, either on a full-time or contract basis.

And if you’ve got opportunities for some other awesome Portland-based developers, let me know. I know their expertise includes PHP, Python, Django, jQuery, C/C++/C#, PostreSQL and probably a bunch of other languages and technologies. We’ve setup an internal mailing list so if you’ve got a position or two open, please let me know and I’ll pass them along.

What I Believe

Let’s start by framing the discussion a bit:

• My religious faith is an incredibly large part of my life. As a Christian, I believe that living a homosexual lifestyle is a sin against God. I do not, however, believe that any one sin is fundamentally worse than another. We live in a fallen world in which all people live in sin to some degree or another.

• In general, I do not believe that you can legislate morality. Passing Proposition 8 is not going to cause gay couples to change their lifestyles. If the Church wishes to witness to homosexuals in an attempt to save them from a believed sinful lifestyle, that is perfectly acceptable. The first amendment guarantees any religion the right to exist and express their belief system, and I don’t believe any level-headed person would disagree with the Church’s right to do so, whether they agree with them or not.

• I believe that marriage is an institution created by God to be between one man and one woman.

• Being a religious institution, I believe marriage has no place in government, either in being defined or performed. If governments wish to offer various rights and benefits to legally recognized family units, those rights should be equally extended without any kind of discrimination, whether based on age, race, sexual orientation, etc. I believe government should be involved only in the business of performing such civil unions, seperate from the institution of marriage.

The Ideal Scenario

As mentioned in my last point above, my ideal scenario is one in which governments perform only civil unions, which are equally available to straight and gay couples. Any and all rights and benefits currently afforded married couples are instead granted to these civil unions. Chris Messina and I completely agree on this point.

Where I do not completely agree with Chris is what we should do in our current non-ideal situation. Chris immediately jumps to the conclusion that if marriage must exist, then it should be non-discriminatory. While I agree with the sentiment, I think there’s more to it in this case.

Current Legislation

California domestic partnerships have quite a history. They were first established by the Domestic Partnership Act of 1999 and have continually been granted more rights in every session of congress since. At this point, nearly all of the state benefits available to married couples are also available to those in a domestic partnership. In fact, Equality California and the NCLR said in the introduction to their brochure for Gay couples explaining the law:

… registered domestic partners in California are provided with most of the rights and responsibilities of married couples under California law. However, registered domestic partners still do not receive any of the 1,138 rights and benefits of married couples under federal law. Registered domestic partners also continue to have less security than married couples when they travel or move outside of California.

In the absence of a recognized right to gay marriage, the state of California took the appropriate action of establishing another institution that would afford same-sex couples all the same rights (at the State level) as an opposite-sex couple. Now I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that no matter what happens with Proposition 8, same-sex couples will have no more or less rights than they do now within California.

Beyond California, the Defense of Marriage Act prevents the effects of Proposition 8 from having any effect in other states or the federal level. First, the act establishes that no state can be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Additionally, it defines marriage at the federal level as being between a man and a woman:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

While I most certainly do not agree with this act (especially the latter part) and believe that it should be repealed, it’s important to note what this law means for Proposition 8. I would love to hear an analysis from someone more familiar with these laws, but it seems to me that Proposition 8 (whether it passes or not) is likely to have little effect with regards to the actual rights and benefits available of same-sex couples.

Moving Forward

So if my understanding above is correct, then how do we move forward from here? My primary criteria at this point is to identify which vote on Proposition 8 is more likely to be a step in the direction of my ideal scenario.

On one hand, I’m concerned that if we do not pass Proposition 8 and the marriage is made available to same-sex couples, then it will be viewed as having won the war and no more effort will be spent in trying to disconnect marriage and government. If instead Proposition 8 does pass, then at the very least it protects the traditional religious definition of marriage. At most, it would emphasize the need to continue expanding the rights afforded domestic partnerships if there are any shortcomings. Over time, additional legislation could seek the removal of marriage from state law, to be replaced by domestic partnerships (or civil unions) for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

On the other hand, I’m generally in favor of small government and don’t like the idea of passing laws that are not really necessary. Even more, amending the constitution pretty firmly plants the institution of marriage within the state government, which is not what I want.

So like I said, I’m not really sure how I’ll be voting next month. I’ve got pretty clear ideas (I think) on the issue, but there’s just no way of knowing what chain reaction this proposition could set in motion in either direction. I welcome any thoughts or comments.

[update]
i also came across these before and after photos from the NOAA (thanks to slashdot).

there is nothing we can do that will prepare us if war comes here to america. all we can do is make sure that we are right with God, and then go on with our daily lives as best we can.

looking at it that way, i’m not too concerned. i hope you aren’t either.