Google Challenging Proposition 8 1475
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. "
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.
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.
benefits cost less (Score:3, Informative)
Still that applies only to state taxes until federal Defense of Marriage is modified.
Re:Color me perplexed. (Score:2, Informative)
Actually.
First we had an implied definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Then Californians voted to explicitly define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Then the courts stepped in the first time.
Re:Mike Murray is LDS (mormon) (Score:2, Informative)
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.
As someone who has done treasury work for a tax-exempt ecclesiastical organization (aka a 'church'), I can tell you that churches can't take stances on specific ballot initiatives or political candidates.
What they can say is things like 'We don't believe in gay marriage and we think nobody should support legislation or political candidates that support gay marriage' or 'Most of our members tell us that they won't be voting for Proposition 8'.
It's a fine line, but technically what they can't say is 'We do not support Prop 8'.** But, they can say anything just short of that.
** Note that this is only an example and I realize that Prop 8 is not a ballot issue at this point, so at this point they can say/do whatever they want WRT Prop 8 specifically.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Depends (Score:1, Informative)
In California, civil unions have the same protection/rights as marriage. The gay community is not denied any rights or privilages. They want marriage because (1) its the common term in legal documents, so it could exclude rights by mistake (2) a social perspective.
The Jewish definition of marriage has been defined for thousands of years. It has a meaning at both the church and state level, which is the problem. Many people do not like the government redefining a religious term. An overwhelming majority of anti-gay marriage voters are for a separation of the terms and the granting of equal rights, but this is not acceptable by the gay community. This makes it messy, hence the majority voting for Prop8.
P.S. I voted for Prop8, live in Bay Area, had gay teachers/classmates/friends, etc. If the government would stop using the term marriage, I would have voted for 100% equality.
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.
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.
Re:Depends (Score:2, Informative)
Two comments. First - the New Testament part of the Bible also condemns homosexuality.
Second. Some argue about the degradation/deterioration of the family in a nation being correlated to its demise (e.g., Rome's "family values" got pretty bad, especially as it applied to mistresses/prostitutes/marriage/kids). Saying it doesn't affect (or, as you more strongly put it, "harm") anyone but the two people involved is, IMO, an understatement. You may as well say that prostitution or gambling doesn't affect anyone but those directly involved. Family, friends, acquaintances (kids, in the gay marriage case?) are all affected.
Whether or not the effect is bad is partially what should be considered, too.
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. I am guessing it has similar arguments (the non-legalizing it) as not allowing polygamy and bestiality to be legal marriage unions. Except homosexuals can be domestic partners, polygamists cannot be domestic partners with 2+ others, and you can't be a domestic partner of a cat.
Short version: there's a lot more to it than "it's between the two men or women, it doesn't affect anyone or anything else, so why is it illegal?"
Re:I'm against the state marrying anyone (Score:2, Informative)
States don't marry people, churches do.
Yeah, a guy at my work got married at Our Lady Of City Hall. :-P If it's strictly religious, how do atheists and agnostics get married?
Marriage has been a civil and social contract independent of religion for a long time now. The religious ceremony is distinct, and can be abandoned completely.
Civil unions have nowhere near the same protections as civil marriage, and the Constitution shouldn't give a shit about how "palatable" something is to bigots.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, judging by semiconductor, which is a mix 90% mix of Asian/Indian, 10% White (of which a lot are european immigrants).
And by software, when I dropped by the MS campus in Mountain View I was amazed to see the huge number of Russians and Indians.
High tech jobs have a lot of country to country moving.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
Countries on every continent except, IIRC, Australia and South America, and two US states (Massachussetts and Connecticut), and ISTR seeing New York recently adopt a policy of recognizing out-of-state marriages of that type though it doesn't perform them.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
cause the US is the only country in the world with tech jobs?
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
It may well be, but, I fail to see how gay marriage affects the ability of a company to hire and retain employees?!?!?
I mean, gays are such a minority out there,
You clearly mis a few points.
First; gays are very much above average represented in the arts and design world.
Second; gays might be a minority but there are very many more than you seem to think, even outside of the world of arts.
is whether they can marry such a big deal with respect to employment? Won't they, like anyone else...go to where the jobs are? It isn't like they can marry everywhere else in the US, and will leave CA in droves.
There is a way above average number of gays in California and other places with the type of employment that the high tech and entertainment industry offers.
That's no doubt a prime reason why the Californian industry is strong in these fields and vice versa, one comes with the other.
Re:you don't understand how it's bad for hiring? (Score:3, Informative)
I just moved to California cause I was hired here, and while the weather is nice, I do miss the sensibility that I've enjoyed in New Hampshire. The only problem with it is that Massachusetts politics are starting to creep in like an infection.
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.
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.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Informative)
Its not just tax breaks. It's
And probably more that I'm not aware of.
Having these benefits makes living in California a more attractive proposition to Gay people and, as such, working for Google in California a more attractive proposition. Ergo, proposition 8 has economically harmed Google and they are well within thier rights to make a fuss about it.
Re:I don't get it (Score:2, Informative)
you can't kid yourself in thinking they are anything but a minority, and a fairly small one at that with regards to humans in general.
10% is not so small..
Re:I'm against the state marrying anyone (Score:3, Informative)
Marriage is not a religious institution, the church coopted marriage, which was originally various more or less formal commitment ceremonies between lovers, or simply a contract between families. The churches and their religious minions are ignoring thousands of years of history prior to church marriages when they say only churches can marry people.
Until the middle ages, the Christian church had nothing to do with marriages whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History [wikipedia.org]
Headline and summary a bit misleading... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:you don't understand how it's bad for hiring? (Score:3, Informative)
That is a pretty major issue you happen to bring up - benefits. Consider party 1 - a man and woman with a little certificate saying that they're going to stay with each other for as long as they both may live, or at least until the divorce settlement. Consider party 2 - two people of the same sex, minus the certificate, but wanting the same sort of relationship.
If one of party 1 gets hired by a company like Google, the other member can get health insurance and other benefits. But, this only works if you have that little certificate. Party 2 can't get that certificate. Therefore, the worker's partner can't get benefits. Therefore, they need a higher salary to pay for those benefits.
So, you're already automatically locking out some of your workforce by salary requirements.
Next, imagine you have two choices for a place to work, in different countries, and you and your partner like to read. In one of those countries, they've started making laws about what people who like to read can and can't do. In the other, there are no such laws, or if there are, they embrace people who like to read.
Where do you want to go work?
Please see this post [slashdot.org] and this post [slashdot.org].
Now, for what you bring up, I believe that is between the homosexual people and the (state) government. If they have some kind of civil union or other analog that is exactly like marriage in every way, then that neatly solves this problem by providing that "certificate" you mention. If not, then this is between them and Google and if Google wants their talents, Google certainly has the resources to make it worth their while. "Where do you want to go work?" sounds like a question that they could best answer after negotiation with Google.
Personally I don't think your employer should even know whether you are married or not. They pay you, you work hard for them, it should end right there. Perhaps the practice of income taxation has made people accustomed to the routine collection of personal information not directly related to the actual business transaction taking place. But then, the only reason to have an income tax (as opposed to all other forms of taxation) is so that you can data mine and use carrot-and-stick methods to manipulate behavior. Not unlike the income tax, which was a "temporary wartime measure" (we fall for that one every time don't we?), employer-provided benefits are the direct result of a WWII wage freeze that required employers to use other methods to attract talent since they could not do so via competitive pay. That's possibly the only reason why you do not have a competitive market today in which any individual can obtain affordable health insurance. I'd rather people question the origin of these practices instead of worrying so much about the implementations.
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.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
Actually there WAS legislation that used to allow this case, specifically states were required to respect each other's marriage laws.. so once one state allowed gay marriage if you got married there and moved your marriage would still be valid in your new home. Even reverting the law to before the Federal Defense of Marriage Act would do the trick.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure how you can say "such a minority out there" as San Fransisco and LA are the 2nd and 3rd largest population of homosexuals in the country, and CA may actually have the largest overall population in total.
Overall, current estimates of the population that identify in some way as gay (Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Transgendered, etc) range up to 5%, that number actually increases if you ask people if they have felt attraction to a member of the same gender (link [about.com]). According to demographics, black or hispanic people account for 13% and 14% of the population respectively (link [wikipedia.org]), yet if this were a law revoking the right of black people to marry, there would be a revolt. Yet, that was what was just done to gay people in CA.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
Under the law, the federal defense of marriage act, they're not considered married if they move out of MA.
Under the constitution, specifically the full faith and credit clause, they should be.
The issue as to whether a gay couple married in MA is married in other states is unresolved until someone decides to sue a state that doesn't recognize their marriage.
Worst possible thing that could happen. (Score:1, Informative)
And if the over rule the amendment you will see a National Constitutional amendment and it will pass.
Simple reason is that just about every politician including President Obama in the US has said that they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. The then say that they also believe that is should be left up to each state.
Well California voters have voted not once, not twice, but three times to not have gay marriage.
This will prove that it can not be left up to the states and it will go national. So far only two states out of 50 have gay marriage and those have not put it up to a popular vote. Do the math and you will see that a national constitutional amendment would pass very easily. Once passed it would be very hard to get ride of.
stratospheric whoosh (Score:3, Informative)
Whew, that's a level of whoosh I'm having a hard time distinguishing from trolling, but I'll make a go at explaining it. I'm not talking about workplace discrimination (which is a separate evil that I will leave aside for brevity), I'm talking about the laws of the society itself being altered by bigots to discriminate against a group of citizens. In my mind Prop 8 is functionally indistinguishable from the anti-mixed-race-marriage laws of the last century, which aptly met their demise in the 1967 Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia.
Now I'm sure the nimrod brigade will respond with "BUT DUH STDDEV, WHY NO WORKPLACE IF GOOGLE COMPANY WORK WORK WORKPLACE DUH PC DUHHHHHH????". Let me try to fill in the very short lines and dots here: Google is a company whose primary operations are in California. If California passes laws that negatively impact the civil liberties of current or potential Google employees, Google is an interested party in trying to get those laws repealed because it places an artificial restraint on their already difficult job of finding the cream of the computing crop to solve hard problems. That supporting the efforts to repeal Prop 8 is a morally correct decision is just icing on the cake, from a business standpoint.
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.
Re:I don't get it (Score:1, Informative)
Marriage was first and foremost about kinship ties and property rights in most civilizations, not about procreation.
Ahem. What's the Latin for 'Bullshit'?
Marriage in classical civilizations of the Mediterranean absolutely had to do with procreation... as well as inheritance rights and class distinction and all that other stuff.
Check the Leges Juliae [wikipedia.org] under Augustus if you don't believe me.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
If Google wants to offer insurance benefits that include gay partners, well they can do so.
That's not quite true -- although as a state issue, Prop 8 doesn't have anything to do with this. Like hundreds of other benefits, health insurance has a FEDERAL tax benefit tied to marriage. Even if an employer offers insurance to a same-sex partner, that partner has to pay tax on the full retail value of that insurance, as if it were income. Only a married partner can receive health insurance without the additional tax burden. Because insurance on the retail market is so expensive, the additional tax often makes the insurance unaffordable (as I can attest from experience).
That's one reason the marriage issue is so important to same-sex couples. Many federal benefits are tied up with the act of marriage, in law.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
U.S. Self-identifying:
[1] http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions [adherents.com]
[2] "The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.[8]" http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/478685.html [google.com]
Homosexual Groups Back Off From "10 Percent" Myth A coalition of leading pro-homosexual activist groups has now admitted in a legal brief that only "2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual."[1] http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=69577 [rr-bb.com]
*Second, sexual behavior researcher, Tom Smith of the University of Chicago authored a study two years ago entitled "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners Frequency and Risk." His study resulted in a figure of "less than 1% exclusively homosexual."
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
This is wrong in two ways -- it gets wrong what the difference between an amendment and a revision is, and gets wrong what it takes to pass each:
(1) The difference between an amendment and a revision is not whether they add, strike, or significantly change language in the Constitution, its whether the change would affect the "underlying principles" of the Constitution,
(2) Both an amendment and a revision require only a simple majority to approve, but only an amendment can be valid if initiated by citizen initiative. A revision requires either a legislative submission to the voters or a constitutional convention, followed by approval of the voters.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
Please cite your source for this. Preferably something with a good stratified random sample of a few thousand people. That 10% number (and bumping it to 13% is really stretching it) came from old Kinsey reports. His estimates have been shown to be grossly overstated. The actual value (according to a 2005 CDC report) is between 1-2%. That is a small minority.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Wait, did you just seriously, and with a straight face use a link to "Rapture Ready" to support an argument? RR is NOT a trusted source of information for anyone other than those who are expecting that they are going to vanish from the earth to sit with Jesus while the rest of us fight a massive war, apparently for the entertainment of god and his new raptured buddies.
Oh, but it gets better. That page seems to just draw from a page at traditionalvalues.org [traditionalvalues.org], entitled Homosexual Urban Legends, The Series. Now, this charming piece of work is by "The Traditional Values Coalition", which is catagorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group [wikipedia.org].
Might as well post links to Stormfront.org for "the real truth about blacks and jews".
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
You know, most people grow out of saying "I know you are but what am I?" as a rebuttal by the time they can type....
Fine though. This is from your link:
So let's take a look at a few of the poor innocent folks that the SPLC is so wrongly vilifying.
Sample of groups listed on the SPLC site:
Westboro Baptist Church (of godhatesfags.com fame, among others)
Aryan Nations Youth Action Corps
National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
Northern Hammerskins (racist skinhead crew)
I find it interesting that rather than try to distance themselves from the groups on the SLPC's list, these folks just scream liberal-conspiracy and claim that the list targets innocent conservative groups. I've got news for you, the conservative movement really doesn't need these kinds of "conservatives".
By the way, why does anyone have to "resist the imposition of anti-Christian regulations and statutes on free people."? If you want to live your life and base your decisions on Christian values, go ahead. That's not what this means though, does it. It means that people who want to force their religion on others get mad when they're told to stop. Freedom to practice your religion does not include the right to make others live by the tenets you follow. It only allows you to follow those tenets yourself.