The way you mentally frame rejection is important. I found Rejection Therapy [1] to be effective at rewiring the brain's perception of rejection and not be attached to the outcome.
People have the right to stand up for their moral conviction, including Eich. However, other people have the right to judge others based on their actions, including the authors.
But if the upvote/downvote buttons have ended up being used as "I agree/disagree" buttons instead of "productive/unproductive discourse" buttons, what mechanism will stop the "endorse" button from also ultimately becoming an "I agree" button too?
I understand the desire to promote higher-quality discourse, but why not go with a less drastic method, like making the value of a user's upvote equal to their average karma, so people with better reputations on the site have a greater influence in sorting comments to the top of the page, but their endorsements aren't required in order for the comments to be seen in the first place?
I'm afraid that with the solution you're planning, it'll become extremely difficult for new users to establish themselves on HN, and HN will become an essentially closed community.
[1]http://rejectiontherapy.com