Slashdot Log In
Google Challenging Proposition 8
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jan 16, 2009 01:50 PM
from the not-being-evil dept.
from the not-being-evil dept.
theodp writes "Coming the day after it announced layoffs and office closures, Google's California Supreme Court filing arguing for the overturn of Proposition 8, which asks the Court not to harm its ability to recruit and retain employees, certainly could have been better timed. Google's support of same-sex marriage puts it on the same page with Dan'l Lewin, Microsoft's man in Silicon-Valley, who joined other tech leaders last October to denounce Prop 8 in a full-page newspaper ad. But oddly, Microsoft HR Chief Mike Murray cited religious beliefs for his decision to contribute $100,000 to 'Yes On 8', surprising coming from the guy who had been charged with diversity and sensitivity training during his ten-year Microsoft stint. "
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Depends (Score:5, Interesting)
So are they being evil here or not? I'm confused.
That depends. If you are against gay marriage, they are evil.
I don't get it. Of all the things going on in the World today, I don't get why this is such a hot issue. Actually, I don't get why folks are so opposed to it. It doesn't cause them any harm.
That's pretty much what the problem is with social value "problems" in this country: people sticking their noses in other people's business. Two people of the same sex getting married doesn't harm me. A person marrying a goat doesn't harm me. But yet, some people think the World will come to an end of two people of the same sex get married. So what? What harm does it cause you?! (I'm not speaking to the parent) What, you're afraid your little snowflake will see two people of the same sex kissing each other and think , "Hmmmmm, I'll kiss my buddy Rod!" Again, so what? In many cultures, heterosexual MEN kiss each other. In our culture, heterosexual women kiss each other. So, again, so what?
Oh wait, your religious book doesn't like it...ooohhhhhh. Which part? The 'Old' part that I think is just Jewish Myth or the 'New' part that's completely loving and forgiving of all folks?
If it weren't happening I would think it were a script from a Twilight Zone episode. You know, where it's set up where folks hate each other for completely ridiculous reasons to show a point of the script writers. In the old days it was Rod Serling - a Goddamn genius.
Parent
Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem - marriage is a religious term for many people. And yet, recognizing marriages for some people and civil unions for others is never going to be truly equal.
The solution is easy! Don't recognize marriages at all. Recognize all pairings between two people as civil unions, regardless of the genders involved. People can call them marriages and debate the meaning of that all they like, but the government stays out of the debate. The only reason the government is involved at all is because of the legal and economic implications of these unions.
Parent
Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's like this:
"Hey everyone, your marriage is now only recognized as a civil union by the United States. However, it is still recognized as a marriage by your church, your friends, your family, and your God."
Parent
people are dumb (Score:5, Informative)
They get hung up on the word marriage.
In reality, marriage under the law and marriage in a religious institution are different things with the same name. However, because many people do both things at once and because they don't distinguish between the two things, they get conflated.
Parent
Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also interesting (I guess this makes #3) to point out that not allowing gay marriage doesn't mean gays can't live together; it means the government doesn't recognize it as a marriage. Which is, by this time, almost a name-only thing.
You won't be allowed to see your same-sex partner in the hospital dying, because you're not "family"...
You're not entitled to any kind of partner benefits (e.g. insurance of any kind) because you're not "family"...
You're forced to live different from other people because you don't obey a certain religious belief. That's the textbook definition of religious discrimination and anyone ought to be able to see that it's a violation of the constitution.
Parent
Not Particularly Inconsistent (Score:5, Insightful)
surprising coming from the guy who had been charged with diversity and sensitivity training during his ten-year Microsoft stint
It's surprising only if you assume that anybody who believes the term marriage should remain gender heterogenous must also think the murder of Matthew Shephard was a really good idea.
I didn't vote yes on 8, but I know a lot of people who did, and their decision had little to do with any lack of sensitivity or exposure to diversity.
Color me perplexed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Put aside whatever your thoughts on whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not. Try to look at this from a systems standpoint.
First, we have a court decision allowing gay marriage. Then, we get a proposition that the voters decide that it should be illegal. Here, we have a very classic case of the voters' wishes versus the concept of legal rights which should not be subject to democratic vote. One side claims that marriage is an inalienable right regardless of gender, and the other side which says this isn't the case. Very deep stuff.
Now, stirring up the issue are corporations. Where in the hell do corporations belong in this? I am of the classical view that corporations are there to make and distribute money. I've never been comfortable with corporations lobbying lawmakers. I have never been comfortable with corporations donating to causes. Let them make and distribute wealth and let individuals make those choices.
When corporations get involved with government, it gets ugly. Same with church and state. So regardless of my feelings on Google's position, my thought is they should shut up. If individuals in Google want to take a stand, fine. But when it becomes Google versus the voters, I become uneasy.
Supplementing the summary (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia Source [wikipedia.org]
Google's argument can be summarized as such: The law deters gays and lesbians from taking up residence in California, which is where the majority of Google's employees work. Thus the law is detrimental to Google in that its gay/lesbian employees may want to leave and prospective employees who happen to be gay/lesbian will have more hoops to jump through to work for Google.
This is particularly bad timing for such a thing as Google is in the process of laying off workers (though it is a very small number - something like 100) and if they are in a position where they have to layoff employees, why are they even talking about hiring employees? Of course the answer to this is simple - Google hopes to grow and something like this will be pertinent in the future - but some people are very shortsighted and will not recognize this.
Hope they win so taxes can be challenged next (Score:5, Interesting)
Other ways to attract prospective employees to CA (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's support of gay rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Was it really necessary to put an attack on one specific Microsoft employee who supported Prop 8? Microsoft has excellent benefits that are extended to same sex domestic partners. It seems kind of churlish to smear Microsoft by juxtaposing Google's corporate stance on the issue against one Microsoft employee's.
Come on, there's plenty of other things to attack Microsoft over.
Both sides of the Prop 8 debate are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
What bothers me personally is this artificial dichotomy that people have created surrounding this issue on both sides. This isn't just about gays and lesbians. What about spinster sisters that simply live together and want their civil rights? Boyfriend and girlfriend forever? Polyamorists? Where are their rights? And what about states that automatically deem a couple to be in common-law marriage without them consciously having entered into that contract? None of these issues have been covered by the proponents or opponents of Prop 8.
Marriage should be replaced by a comprehensive standard (but modifiable) civil contract between two or more consenting adults like any other business contract. Whether one goes to a church to get married, or to a lawyer's office, they can choose to call it what they will and associate as they want to, but that's separate from the contract. In effect, every "civil union" will be bound by a prenuptial agreement that must be consciously entered into by all parties that defines all of the criteria for what is currently deemed marriage. Assets coming into the marriage shouldn't be deemed automatic community property unless the parties choose this consciously. Child custody will always be split equally amongst the individuals unless otherwise specified in the contract or unless it can be clearly proven that harm is coming to the children from one or more of the parties; joint custody is implied even when they live together (since that's effectively the same thing, just that they're under the same roof). In addition, this will also function as a living and non-living will so that probate judges don't erode an inheritance for the state's benefit as opposed to the individual's benefit, and also to avoid conflicts with the families of the individuals involved. Also, just like a standard contract, individuals will not be entitled to things like lifetime alimony and must mitigate their "damages" by being obligated to find work and/or getting educated to find better work. The contract may be modified at any time with the consent of the parties. During a "divorce", the parties will be bound by the separation provisions of the agreement, thereby reducing the amount of time that lawyers and judges are involved, the amount of tax money spent on courts, and the amount of personal money spent on lawyers in protracted litigation. For those in current marriages, their marriages would be subject to the same standard civil contract rules with modifications from any pre-existing prenuptial agreements.
Neither of the candidates in this presidential election nor any of the state or local candidates made any mention of the damage that the process of divorce has on families, and on individuals' wealth. Divorce is one of the biggest destroyers of wealth in society today and contributes to other societal problems such as childhood delinquency. Why not take on both the issue of civil rights and of divorce, and redefine fundamentally how society organizes itself? If people were forced to think carefully on what a marriage really is - a business transaction - then they might treat it as such. Wrap whatever other window dressing you like around it, but it all boils down to business at the end of the day.
I'd say that if any corporations were truly progressive, they would push for this too. At the end of the day, this would be to their benefit when an employee "divorces" since there would be less time spent off of work. Too bad Google doesn't get this, and even more humorously undermines its own argument by laying off people. Mixing business and politics isn't smart business anyway, as being neutral on issues pisses off the least number of potential customers as I'm sure Google will lose a few of its customers. Unfortunately, everyone loses when we force these dichotomies down people's throats, and business money like Google's simply aggravates this.
50%+ votes should not a constitution change make (Score:5, Interesting)
Where I live (NL) --Yes, liberal bias on these issues because of nationality is noted -- a constitution change involves:
- Find 2/3 majority vote in Congress;
- than a 2/3 majority vote in Senate;
- New elections (that means wait out the 4 year term);
- new 2/3 majority vote in the newly elected Congress and
- new 2/3 majority vote in the newly elected Senate.
This prevents constitution amendments based on hype or 'in-vogueness' of an idea and it also allows for the legislation to mature.
Of course the constitution deal does get clouded in package deals, as it will hardly be the only issue in an election. And yes it does make a constitution change slow as molasses, but it does look like a more even keeled process.
BTW, does this mean a new 'reverse prop 8' amendment can be started up next week which will undo this change? A flip-flop constitution sounds like an interesting concept for
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is claiming it's bad because it makes it harder to hire [gay] people, but it just laid off a bunch of people so it's not doing any hiring anyway.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The law will last a lot longer than this current recession.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
What has struck me as ironic is Christians citing monogamous heterosexual marriage as something ordained by God, when the monogamous part of it was in fact pressed upon the Hebrews and other subjected people of the Roman Empire.
Marriage was first and foremost about kinship ties and property rights in most civilizations, not about procreation.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Most gays are usually quite well educated, which is more than I can say regarding the majority of Americans.
Perhaps the gays down at the steel plant might be more prone to keep quiet about it because it's less tolerated in that environment?
Parent
Citation needed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gays are a minority in America. They're not a minority in higher-level jobs requiring an education.
That's a very strong assertion.
What evidence is there that more than half of the people in "higher-level jobs requiring an education" are homosexual?
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be really interested in seeing an analysis of your "most gays are usually quite well educated" (I'm ignoring the weasel worsd of "most" and "usually", either you have a point or you don't.) My guess is that you probably don't hang out with a lot of poorly educated individuals across all walks of American life. If you did, I suspect that you'd find that gays or no better educated than any other group.
On a different topic, I'm curious as to why Google would think that Prop 8 would prevent them from offering any benefits they desired? All it does is define what a marriage is. If Google wants to offer insurance benefits that include gay partners, well they can do so.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally? I don't think any breaks should be given to anyone just for being married or having kids. It makes those that are not...effectively subsidizing the behavior of those that do.
we "subsidize" all sorts of behaviors, and in this case that behavior is the reason that each one of us is alive. I don't have a problem with tax breaks for those people that are having kids, but if that's what we're doing then those tax breaks should be specifically for that and not just for getting married (which is already a good financial strategy).
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't subsidize kids to encourage having kids, you idiot. We subsidize kids because kids are expensive, and it's beneficial to society at large that the kids grow up educated (guess what? people without kids subsidize public schools too) and well taken care of rather than illiterate and malnourished.
We subsidize marriage (and make it somewhat difficult to dissolve) because it is (in theory) a stable relationship, and stable relationships are good for society as a whole, just ask a sociologist. It is particularly good for children to have parents who are in a stable relationship (just ask any kid whose parents are divorced), and encouraging marriage is the easiest way to ensure that.
By the way, (just at the general audience) this isn't a valid argument against gay marriage. Gays can adopt, and many do - it's still beneficial for adopted kids to be in a stable family, regardless of the gender of their adopted parents.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
We are not talking about a law here, we're talking about a constitutional amendment.
The courts have no authority to change a state's constitution.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently CA has two different types of amendment procedures with one having a MUCH lower barrier to pass.
One is simple referendum (and thus just needs 50% of the vote) while the other is a more involved process that requires legislative support.
The court case is going over which type of amendment prop-8 was and thus was the method used to pass it valid.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
The court case is going over which type of amendment prop-8 was and thus was the method used to pass it valid.
Prop 8 was introduced as an amendment: it added language to the California state constitution. Amendments require only a simple majority vote to pass.
The other type of constitutional change is a revision: striking language or significantly changing the language in the state constitution. A revision requires a 2/3 majority vote to pass.
Because the California state constitution already has an equal protection clause (the clause which the California Supreme Court used to declare gay marriage legal), the addition of Prop 8 to the constitution would seem to place it at contradiction with itself.
What the opponents are arguing is that for Prop 8 to be valid it would have to be a revision: striking the language in the equal protection clause and adding the language that the banners of gay marriage want.
Convincing 2/3 of Californians to strike the equal protection clause from their constitution is a much more daunting task than getting 50% of them to say, ick, we don't like gay marriage. Ban it please.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn straight. I'm a hetero who can't find a suitable woman to marry, how is that different from a gay not being able to find a suitable woman to marry?
I can see tax breaks for people with children, but NOT for marital status. If I were married I'd have someone with another income to help me with my bills. Married people should be paying higher taxes, not lower.
Actually I don't believe marriage should enter into taxation at all, nor should it enter into any of the other things that gays (perhaps rightfully, perhaps not) complain about. Except perhaps they should pass a law outlawing discrimination on the basis of marital status.
Single people are discriminated against regardless of sexual orientation.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
So, should be give them special rights above others?
No, the state (you) should stop taking their rights like an equal opportunity to get married.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
"tolerance" : an intolerant, and dangerous contradiction
Can someone please explain to me how there can be tolerance against gays, muslims and mexicans ?
Mexicans are massively (and I mean massively) against gay marriage. That's a fact, treat it as you will.
If you are publicly against the massacring of gays in a muslim state, you run yourself the risk of getting killed for it. Worse than that fact in and of itself, is that most moslims support that (and no "only in muslim-majority countries" is no serious objection : that's like saying you only kill when you're sure the other guy ends up dead).
These tolerance ideas are nice and all, but how do they work ? They are self-inconsistent. Are you tolerant to christianity and islam ? Are you tolerant to their intolerance towards gays ? Are you aware of the different treatment of gays in various cultures (e.g. massacring them islam-style, ignoring and generally having nothing to do with them jesus-style, and let's not start claiming these 2 are the worst, just, for example, look up how imperial japan (the party that's really the only political party in japan is a big fan of imperial days)
And this is keeping it politely. After all, there are many ideologies, including some truly horrendous monstrosities like islam. How about the variant of protestantism that fought a civil war for slavery ? How about muslim slave trade, an essential part of the islamic religion for over 1400 years ? How about nazi's ? Should you be tolerant to them ?
And if the answer is "you shouldn't be tolerant to intolerance" ... where do you go with that. It's beyond obvious that large amounts of the muslim world are horribly intolerant, and so are the large majority of it's inhabitants. How do you plan to change their mind (note that most of them would respond violently to any attempt to change their mind), and most of their governments and police forces won't let you try in the first place ...
So what do you do if you "do not tolerate the intolerant" ? Do you attack muslims in the US ? (Neo-)nazi's in the US ? Elsewhere ? Do you enforce what basically amounts to US law with an army world-wide ?
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Well just because they laid off people it doesn't mean they are not hiring. In a changing economy you need people with different skill sets. And most people can't or are not willing to adjust to the different jobs.
For example are you willing to quit your tech job, and do a marketing job for less money. or would you rather loose your job in hopes of finding an other one.
Parent
you don't understand how it's bad for hiring? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? Jesus, try not to be completely dense. Imagine for a second that you have polka-dot skin, and place you'd like to work for happens to be in Plaidlandia, where people with polka-dot skin are reviled and discriminatory laws are written into the books against them. Would you take the job in Plaidlandia?
You can fill in other involuntary attributes, places, and such above as needed until a light dawns in your head. (The part of me that thinks that subtly is lost on the clueless really wants to mutter something about being a Jewish, German-speaking chemist in 1933 and immigrating to Germany here, but that seems over the top. :P)
Hell, I'm as straight as an arrow and Prop 8 gives me pause regards moving to silicon valley. I left Texas partially because I was tired of my work and income supporting an economy full of bigots with a government happy to cater to them, and moving to where a pile of assholes just wrote discrimination (of any sort, regardless of whether I would be affected by it) into their state constitution isn't high on my list of Good Moves.
Parent
Re:you don't understand how it's bad for hiring? (Score:5, Interesting)
We already did separate but equal. It doesn't work out
Parent
Re:you don't understand how it's bad for hiring? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
This law prevents Google from giving same sex partners benefits for the same price. Insuring two unmarried people is far more expensive than two married people.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Funny)
Unless Google is marrying them, I don't see how that works.
I mean, that old joke about being married to your job... it's only a joke.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
simple, where would you rather work? Company A where your marriage is legal, you get benefits and tax breaks for that... or Company B where you and your husband/wife are legally "just good friends".
Parent
Lack of imagination? (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea was to put yourself in the position of gay couples. It wasn't that long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in many states.
Parent
Re:Lack of imagination? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm straight, and a Christian and I'm all for allowing any consulting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom. My marriage isn't less valid because two men or two women decide to have sex with each other.
Frankly I'm alarmed by the millions of people in this country who want Uncle Sam to regulate what is acceptable in their bedroom.
I think the problem is with the word "marriage". To me and many others, marriage is a religious thing. Since religion has no place in government, I think the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether! I would be perfectly happy getting married by my pastor and having the government recognize my marriage as a "civil union". Civil unions can be between any two people who are willing to share in the responsibility of what we now call marriage.
I feel the government would do well to:
1) Convert all marriages to "civil unions".
2) Revoke the governments recognition of marriage.
3) Allow any two people (or three or four... I don't care) to enter into "civil unions", just as men and women are allowed to do today.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
News Flash: GOOGLE HAS POWER!
So why the hell are people bitching about a company doing something RIGHT in regards to changing laws?
With the amount of power Google has (not to mention their marketing business), you should be counting your lucky big toes that they aren't trying to legalize snooping, etc. In fact they tend to do the OPPOSITE (well, except for China).
Sorry for the rant, but if you guys are going to bitch for change, then don't bitch when someone tries to make it happen!
Parent
Get with it man! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also a subset of people who are straight, but would not feel comfortable moving to a state/country that tramples on the civil rights of a minority. Can't forget about them.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor can you forget the subset of people who would not feel comfortable moving to a state/country that permits same-sex marriage.
Damn skippy you can. Forty years ago it was illegal in many places for a black to marry a white. We threw that out because it was just plain wrong. I'm sure that pissed off a lot of people, but that was their problem. In forty years, we'll marvel that we still kept laws barring gays from doing the same.
I'm a straight white Christian conservative, but John and Bob getting married isn't going to un-marry me from my wife. If one man loves another how I love my wife, I can't think of any reason why I should be allowed to keep them apart.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
As a gay software engineer, I would be a lot more interested in moving to Massachusetts or Connecticut partially because they allow for same-sex marriage.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
As a supporter of Proposition 8, I would be a lot more interested in moving to a state that does not allow for same-sex marriage.
Many of us normal folks would be willing to throw in a few bucks for your one-way ticket to Iran.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Mike Murray is LDS (mormon) (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know why you would get modded down for that, since it's true. I find the LDS church's actions regarding Prop 8 to be highly inappropriate. I was a member of that church for a long time, and although they were clearly very conservative, they never made a real effort to influence voting on any particular issue since the ERA amendment in the 70s. That they would go so far to defeat this particular bill, in my mind, puts them in the same category as those evangelical churches who were telling their parishioners that voting Democrat would endanger their immortal souls.
In my opinion, churches that take stances on political issues like that should lose their tax-exempt status, as the clause under which they are tax exempt clearly prohibits political activism.
Parent
Re:Mike Murray is LDS (mormon) (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, churches that take stances on political issues like that should lose their tax-exempt status, as the clause under which they are tax exempt clearly prohibits political activism.
The problem is, this isn't really a political issue, it is a social issue. I'm certainly not saying I agree with them, I was very dissapointed when my home state passed a law similar to prop 8 a few years ago.
IMHO, marriage is a personal (and sometimes religious) choice, and as such the government should just stay out of it. I don't know where religios people get off trying to tell gay people that they don't have the right to share insurance, file taxes together, and visit each other in the hospital; which are about the only rights being legally married entitles you to anyway.
Just change the wording in all the laws from marriage to civil union and be done with it. If you want to get married, go to a church that will marry you, but don't expect the government to recognize it, and that goes for both straight and gay couples. If you want the rights legally married people currently have, go fill out the paperwork for a civil union at the courthouse, and that also goes for both straight and gay couples.
Parent
Re:Mike Murray is LDS (mormon) (Score:5, Insightful)
And frankly same sex marriage is a religious issue that has proded its way into politics because of the way government deals with marriage.
Exactly. That's why the government should have nothing to do with marriage and churches should have nothing to do with legal rights associated with what we'll call a civil union. Any church of any creed, catholic, wiccan, psychodelic cyberparish of the new voudon, whatever, can perform or not perform marriages for whomever and excluding whomever they wish. But the partnership with all the legal ramifications would be the civil union, and being a secular, government thing, it would not be allowed to discriminate. If a couple wanted both then they would have to see both the priest (or priestess) and the appropriate representative of secular authority for two different ceremonies.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I'm against the state marrying anyone (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. Bump this post up.
Let churches do church stuff. Let the state do state stuff. The two rarely need to meet, and definitely do not need to meet on this topic. Marriage is a religious pact between two people and their beliefs. Civil-union is a legal provided by the state to give any consenting adults right of attorney, inheritance, and other legal protections.
Parent
Re:I'm against the state marrying anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent