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. "
I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
why could the timing have been better? how are the two related?
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.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The law will last a lot longer than this current recession.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not really sure you live in a very diverse area. I've worked in semiconductors, and know plenty of people in the software business. Gay's are not a minority. Most gays are usually quite well educated, which is more than I can say regarding the majority of Americans.
Gays are a minority in America. They're not a minority in higher-level jobs requiring an education.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, we're talking about a law here, that will effect everyone out there, NOT just the people in higher level jobs, so we are indeed talking about CA and even larger, America in general.
If they were not a minority, these laws would not be passed and existing ones would be overturned.
Personally? I don't think any breaks should be given to anyone just for being married or having kids. It makes those that
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).
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.
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: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: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: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.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Who passed a law saying Gays couldn't get married?
I've always had a problem with this characterization of this debate. Noone has said that a gay man cannot get married. They've simply said he cannot marry another man. I'm straight. I'm not allowed to marry another man either. I don't have any right that the gay man doesn't have
Don't misunderstand me. The pro-prop 8 people are wrong too. There's no way that two men getting married is going to diminish my marriage in any way.
What I think people should realize it that this is a gender issue. Men can marry women, but women can't. Therefore, men have a right that women don't have. This is illegal according to Civil Rights Act of 1964 [wikipedia.org]!
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay. The right to marry a woman is one that everyone should have. Many feel a baby is essential to a family and if they cannot or choose not to carry one themselves, they should have the right to marry a woman to do so.
The right to marry a man is one that anyone should have. On average men are larger, stronger, and earn more. If one desired feelings of physical or financial safety, perhaps while raising a child they themselves had, inherited (god-parent), or adopted, they should have the right to marry a man to help with the financial burden and protecting the child.
Also, you wouldn't swear to your genetic status, it'd be tested.
As for clothing restrictions on women, where it's being fought it's being fought on gender equality grounds. As a restriction that's placed on women, but not men, and not for a compelling reason to society, it is unreasonable and is being struck down. Other stupid laws, or legal systems that cling to them, will follow.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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: (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 ot
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.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Who's talking about special rights? Actually, if I'm not entirely mistaken, prop 8 revolves around gay marriage. In other words, the right that the non-minority has. Unless there's something that wasn't told yet, all they want is the same right. Not something special on top of that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They can however marry in other countries and may opt to remain in those countries rather than travel to a medieval theocracy for employment. Thus reducing Google's ability to recruit internationally.
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 ?
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, homosexuality was forbidden in the late Roman Empire. They were growing and expanding while homosexuality was considered normal and morally ok.
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, 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.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
How does this law hurt Googles ability to hire? seriously? Does this law prevent Google from giving same sex partner benefits?
Under the guise of 'hurts hiring' one could wax a whole bunch of laws that should be in place. Laws *dont* exist to serve corperate interest... okay, okay laws *should* not exist to serve corperate interest.
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.
Re: (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 c
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
Re:you don't understand how it's bad for hiring? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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: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.
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".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Company A where your marriage is legal
Google didn't pass the law. Google also isn't confined to California [google.com]:
Google has offices around the globe, from Bangalore to Zurich, but regardless of where we are, we nurture an invigorating, positive environment by hiring talented, local people who share our commitment to creating search perfection and want to have a great time doing it.
In other words, if you live in California, the law is the law. Don't blame Google for it. In fact, if you feel like you're forced to move because of the law, you could probably ask to be transferred to another Google location.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
who's blaming google? But damned if I'm going to live somewhere where my marriage may or may not be legal. Any company from that state would have to work a LOT harder then those in states/countries where I don't need to worry about stuff like that.
and that is their point. To attract GLBT employees to their Cali locations they need to offer FAR more then other companies do.
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!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
tell google to move the job I was hired for then?
tell google to let me telecommute every day from another state then?
or just tell google that I'm going to do the same job for their competitor elsewhere?
not all jobs can be just picked up and moved to another state. Hardware support, you can't be hired on as a tech for their Cali based servers and live in Canada can you?
Re: (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.
Google is more unipolar than commonly understood (Score:3, Interesting)
At least in my admittedly somewhat limited experience. I was looking for a full-timer gig last spring and it came down to Google and another place. Google wanted me to move to Cali for three months at the start of any engagement with them (I guess to give the kool-aid 90 days to work ;)). I got the impression that they were not very flexible about that, either (maybe it's different for international offices? I'm on the east coast of the US). So I can easily see the argument that the laws and environment
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.
Re:Lack of imagination? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Lack of imagination? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, they just want Uncle Sam to regulate what is acceptable in other people's bedrooms. Which might be what you meant.
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.
Re:Lack of imagination? (Score:4, Interesting)
And that in itself is part of the problem. Marriage is a concept within most religions, it is not a concept, nor a word, created by religions. It has existed since well before the time of the (typically Christian) religions that rail against it being anything other than a ceremony in a church, before a pastor and God, between a male virgin and female virgin. (Apropos of homosexuality, many religious movements take inordinate offense to the concept of civil unions and similar.
Re:Lack of imagination? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know you're expressing your personal opinion. My mother is an active advocate in the Christian Coalition. She is against a civil union compromise, as are most Christians I've spoken to. They want homosexuality to be persecuted on some level. Some people have even called for it to be criminalized.
On what grounds may you ask? On the grounds that the Bible labels it a sin. They're specifically calling for legislation by dogmatic law.
As for the semantics of religion, plenty of words (if not most) have multiple definitions, if not also varied connotations. You hold marriage to be a sacrament. To get a marriage certificate, you don't even need to be married in a church. Why not ask to outlaw any marriage that doesn't confine to your view of the sacrament?
Homosexuality is mentioned briefly in the same early books of law that are largely ignored for their lack of relevance in a modern world. Divorce however is mentioned numerous times in the Bible as disrespect to the sacrament of marriage.
Let me know when the Christian Coalition is going to push for divorce to be illegal.
Furthermore, while you have a right to practice your sacrament in your particular faith, so do others. Freedom of religion protects everyone.
Most Catholics insist that only Catholics may partake of communion. That doesn't stop me as a non-Catholic of partaking of communion. I violate their sense of sacrament, but what I do isn't illegal.
On the same grounds, it shouldn't be illegal for two men or two women to be married.
Civil rights isn't about advocating the rights of one group, or protecting one particular minority. It is about advocating equal rights for everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
can google provide their GLBT employees with state and federal marriage level tax breaks? how about visitation rights in the hospital? or inheritance rights?
cause I know a few companies over here where GLBT folks can get those...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just a cooperation pushing its personal politics and just because many agree with it does not make that any more acceptable.
So I guess when Mr. Schindler's company sheltered Jews from the Nazis, that was also "pushing personal politics" and similarly unacceptable to you?
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice subtle link into Goodwin! When in doubt compare someone to a nazi!
but the equivalent for Google is to provide benefits and compensate for any 'tax penalties' gay employees might face. Did Schindler sue the government or just use his personal wealth to help people?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
cause the US is the only country in the world with tech jobs?
Get with it man! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that your straight-faced belief in fairy tales might have something to do with Google not wanting to hire you. Cuz, ya know, most of us quit believing in Santy Claus when we were, oh, 5 or 6. Because your so-called "talents" obviously don't include rational thought. Or I just got whooshed.
Either way, just sayin
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So how are you enjoying Leopard?
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.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Should all companies get to repeal laws that might make their life harder or just the companys you like or laws you hate?
Well, in a country where churches get to make the laws, corporations should get to repeal them. Sounds like its only fair.
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
Efficient indeed.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (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.
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.
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."
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: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.
I must need new contacts (Score:3, Funny)
I read that as Google Challenging Preparation H
Re:I must need new contacts (Score:4, Funny)
I'll challenge Preparation H too. It tastes disgusting and doesn't work at all. I may as well shove the tube up my ass for all the good it does.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
These are not the 'rhoids you're looking for.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Having religious reasons behind ones bigotry doesn't change the fact that it's bigotry. See also: Middle East.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should corps be silent on issues that affect them? The problem with corps is undue influence, not them speaking in the first place.
By the very nature of multi-billion dollar corporations, they have undue influence.
And the lack of gay marriage is putting Google at a competitive disadvantage.... who are they at a disadvantage compared to? Their competitors in Alabama?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you'd also argue that billionaires should stay out of these things? What about highly intelligent people - they would have undue influence as well.
What about gifted orators?
Re:Color me perplexed. (Score:4, Insightful)
If denying others equal rights by codifying your beliefs into the laws of this nation is a defining factor of your faith, then it is a terrible faith indeed.
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)
I'm against the state marrying anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
States don't marry people, churches do. When a couple goes before a justice of the peace and get married, they're really just entering a civil-union. The state has allowed religious officiants to create these unions as part of a church's marriage ceremony, but they are two distinct institutions. For instance if one get's married in the Catholic church, and later gets a civil divorce the church still views that person as being married. In order to get remarried in the Catholic church, you have to have the first marriage annulled by the church. Conversely, just having one's church marriage annulled doesn't leave one legally eligible for remarriage until they get a civil divorce.
Of course the source of confusion is that the state refers to civil unions with the religious term marriage. When people hear about gay marriage being legalized, in their minds they think of the religious part of it, and no one likes the state messing around with their religion. If gays are allowed to get married, no church is obligated to marry them. There are plenty of churches that will (some already do) but the state can't mandate that a church violate its religious beliefs.
Gays need to drop the gay-marriage campaign, and go for civil-unions which are identical, yet more palatable to the general(voting) public.
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.
Re:I'm against the state marrying anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
We tried "separate but equal" before. It doesn't work.
Re:I'm against the state marrying anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
"charged with diversity and sensitivity training" (Score:3, Funny)
"charged with diversity and sensitivity training"
So, he was charged with giving someone a class on diversity and sensitivity? I agree, the people that teach those classes should be punished...
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.
Proud to be a shareholder. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Just wondering (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I cannot speak for all religous people. And I happen to agree with you -- it shouldn't matter what religious people think of how any two people want to spend their time.
The problem is that being married has a specific set of legal implications that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The LDS church doesn't try to influence politics in the realm of economy, war, labor laws, taxes, etc (many things that directly effect the actual organisation that is the church). There is only one area that the church gets in politics for, and that is things regarded as a threat to the family, which is most important to the church. That is definitely not the same as denouncing an entire political platform. And frankly same sex marriage is a religious issue that has proded its way into politics because of
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone knows that the only way to have diversity is to exclude members of LDS or other organizations that believe something contrary to the accepted standard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess this.
[Prop 8 would have a harmful effect on this, that, ... ] and on California's ability to attract and retain a diverse mix of employees from around the world.
I guess Google is arguing that California won't attract gays (ha, haven't they heard of that small, country town, San Francisco?) therefore the huge gay talent pool will be lost?
IMO, Google is acting strangely. I personally voted for Prop 8 but I understand a business's ability to say who or what they will hire and what they will allow of their employees ... but Google isn't just doing corporate policy here.
benefits cost less (Score:3, Informative)
Still that applies only to state taxes until federal Defense of Marriage is modified.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just curious, how do we define wrong in an unambiguous, culturally- and time-insensitive manner?