Slashdot Mirror
Google Challenging Proposition 8
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. "
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Yeah, same here. I don't see how this affects their ability to hire anyone, gay or straight. Prop 8 is bullshit, but this doesn't seem to have any real relation to it.
I'll get modded down in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
If you're one of those dumbshit gay hating jesusbots, I guess that's evil.
But really, if Jesus were to come back today and see what those guys were calling a religion based on his teachings, he'd be totally fucking pissed.
Gay's will be reluctant to move to california
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.
Tweet, tweet.
Yeah, instead they'll move to one of all those other states where the voters have approved gay marriage.
Oh wait...
The law will last a lot longer than this current recession.
The cake is a pie
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"harm its ability to recruit and retain employees"? How the bloody hell does someone being unable to marry someone else prevent you from employing them?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
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".
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
Plenty of gay hatred inside of Obamanation.
Taking off the blinders and looking in the mirror is the first step in getting real.
its also hard to remove religion from politics
they both play at the game of social mores and laws
i'm not making an argument against you, i am in fact extending it by saying that all churches should have their tax exempt status revoked, regardless. and they should have never been tax exempt in the first place
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Company A where your marriage is legal
Google didn't pass the law. Google also isn't confined to California:
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.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
...do something about the oppressive cost of housing in the bay area.
...do something about the oppressive taxes in California.
...do something about the oppressive traffic.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
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.
My other sig is extremely clever...
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.
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
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.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Thanks Google for "Doing no evil". I'm also glad to see many other companies on board too. Apple and MS included.
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...
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
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?
The real issue here is why the government is involved in the business of marriage to begin with. Government shouldn't be involved at all in the current fashion.
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.
I hate responding to anymous cowards, but this is a statement to all of slashdot. Every time one of these laws comes out that most people (on slashdot at least) find morally wrong, there are calls for change and for people with power to make the change happen.
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!
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?
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
I know, especially the good human families with one man and four women at once.
;)
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
So, exactly how many places are there that recognize "marriages" between two people of the same sex?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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?
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
So, only religious beliefs that are in line with your way of thinking are OK? I thought all you "forward thinking" types value tolerance. Where is the tolerance for Mike's beliefs?
Plain and simple: marriage is a religious belief. Last I checked Seperation of church and state should still be held. So tell the government to quit recognizing ALL marriages.
The idea of tieing yourself to another human being legally is a gut wrenching thought (and from hearing those who are/have been married, I am safe on these assumptions anyways). Especially from a male perspective where if he (OR HER) fucks it up, HE will lose 50% of his stuff, and be forced to pay child support for the next few decades, and HE will lose custody of ALL their children.
Call me old fashioned, but I'm for equal rights... which strangely seems to piss a few women off.
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
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.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
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.
I am just wondering why this story was tagged as "Republican." I mean Prop 8 passed by about 600,000 votes or 4% of those voting and no one can say the Republicans normally can produce that kind of a majority in California. Clearly, more than just Republicans are against it.
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 are not...effectively subsidizing the behavior of those that do. So, no...I don't think tax breaks should be there for anyone as a 'couple', straight or gay. If you work...you pay.
While homosexuals are a very vocal minority out there...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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
"Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
Those people are religious fundamentalists, not exactly the kind of people you want working for you if you're looking for smart people...
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).
So Basically, You'd prefer to discriminate based on religious Belief? I would have thought that the opposite of intolerance would be tolerance, but what do I know? You'd probably just attach a dismissive label to me to avoid having to think about the consequences of my ideas.
If all you do is hate those that hate you, and love those that love you, then you're not really doing anything constructive to change the situation.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
But why give a break for having kids? I mean, in general for humans, it is natural to fuck, and that results in having kids. I seriously doubt that it every comes up where deciding upon having kids whether that will help with the coming tax years. I just can't picture:
"Hon, I'd like to have another kid...think we should? I dunno hon, but, before you take that rubber off, lets go downstairs and consult our 1040 instructional form, and see what the tax benefits are? What?? We can get how much for procreating tonight?? Rip off that rubber lover, and put that thing in me!!"
I dunno...I just don't picture that happening. I think with everyone, that tax break is something that is discovered LONG after the minutes of passion have subsided. So, if that's the case...why do we keep the break? It certainly isn't an incentive to have kids. And yet, it DOES still have the effect of those who have none, or less kids....are subsidizing those that do have more kids. That just doens't seem fair to me....especially in light of the fact that people have and will fuck, and have kids if the tax break were revoked tomorrow!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Laws *dont* exist to serve corperate interest
What are corporations...
A bunch of people working.
I haven't seen a corporation that had 0 human influence, and all the money never went to a human.
People get money in the end and they spend it to other people.
You can't put a dollar bill on an alter and expect the earth to magically give you a bottle of soda pop, and absorbed the dollar into the earth. That dollar that you put in a vending machine pays for a person to build vending machines, repair the vending machine, the people who makes the bottles, the people to makes the soda, the people who collect/mine the raw material to make everything.
Our current problem with the economy is the people who have the money do not want to spend it as they expect they will not get a fare return for what they spend so they sit on it. As well as some people made so much money that they would rather have it sit then moving as they already have enough for their needs, and the amount that they make takes away from people who would spend it faster.
Corporations are people and laws are for the people.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I think that your straight-faced belief in fairy tales might have something to do with Google not wanting to hire you.
I think if 1) you find a single religious person working at google your hypothesis is shredded and 2) I've never seen an amployment app that asked about religion (of course, I've never applied for a job at a church, temple, or synagogue either).
I know, especially the good human families with one man and four women at once.
I think that's actually a reason many oppose prop 8. If the definition of marriage is changed from "a man and a woman" to "two people", that makes it easier to change to "a man and three women" or "three people" or "a man and his horny goat".
IMO government should stay out of the marriage business period.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
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?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What are these "special rights" you speak of?
caritj.org
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.
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
"tired of the tyranny of political correctness in this country"
So you've decided to replace it with your own brand of tyrrany?
Nice going, Pol Pot.
"Time to stop labeling people who don't bow to the Gay movement as heartless abusers."
How dare you.
They're not asking you to bow to anything, you divisive bigot. All they're demanding is the right to get up off their own knees and stand beside you as equals.
What label would you use for anyone who would deny their fellow man such a right? How can you even imply that such a label is somehow unwarranted, or unearned?
(And yes, I can say with resolute and immediate authority that California is, in fact, chock full of assholes, of every brand, stripe, and political leaning)
I like that your argument relies on the notion that it'd be wrong to sue Nazi Germany for their discrimination - it's amusing in its prima facie stupidity. It's not nearly as amusing that your various bigoted posts are modded to +3.
Thing being, if one state makes law allowing this, it become a de facto national law, due to the full faith and credit clause.
I disagree. Many states have laws and regulations that are not respected in other states, including the regulation of various practices, such a medicine, for example. Just because a Nurse Practicioner is legally allowed to dispense Category III narcotics in one state does NOT give him/her the right to dispense in another state. In some states, Nurse Practitioners can establish their own clinics and operate independently, but they cannot take their license and operate independently in the state of Georgia where Nurse Practitioners must, by law, be attached to a doctor's certificate to practice. (My wife is a Nurse Practitioner who just spent 5 years working to get Georgia to allow NPs to dispense medicine under their own license.)
Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege extended by the state to certain qualified individuals. As such, it is regulated and constrained by the state. There are legal age, competency, and exclusion restrictions (e.g. you can't marry someone under age 16, you can't marry someone who is insane, and/or you can't marry your sibling) that are well within the government's purview to impose on the general population.
The question in California is: Can the people impose upon the general population a restriction if a majority believe that restriction is a benefit to the population as a whole? The answer is always yes, they can. That's the whole point of having a democracy. As of now, the majority of Californians believe that heterosexual marriage is a benefit for society, and that homosexual marriage is NOT a benefit to society. So, if the majority of people living in California wish to change their constitution so as to constrain qualifications for a marriage license to heterosexual individuals, it's their right to do so. Until homosexuals can prove to the satisfaction of the majority of the people that homosexual marriage is a benefit for society, it's unlikely to change. And one sure way to entrench the mindset of the people proposing the change, is to attack their institutions of worship, as some radical factions have done.
Impetuous! Homeric!
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"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 ?
A founding principle of our republic is minority rights and majority rule. I think that gets overlooked at times.
That's probably not true. They are mostly interested in hiring smart people, which includes many gays but fewer religious bigots. Prop 8 means those gays are going to MA, while the bigots hang around CA. Bummer for CA employers.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
About the tax thing: you're right, until GWB and Congress changed tax law in 2001 there was a tax penalty for being married, if both spouses worked. Now that it's gone, there's effectively a "single person" tax penalty -- that is, take any two single people who are employed and not married; if they went and got married to each other they'd then pay less in taxes.
Given all the other financial benefits of being married (actually about the same as living together) I really wish the tax code would go back to the Marriage penalty; it's more fair.
If there were a marriage penalty again, gay marriage would have the interesting property that gay people would be asking to pay more in taxes to have a legal union (just like before 2001). And yet, I'm sure most of them would do it, since the marriage decision isn't (usually) about finances anyways.
Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
That's what I keep thinking on this. If the state court nullifies an amendment to the state constitution, which was passed according to that constitution, they will have effectively given themselves unlimited lawmaking powers by fiat.
If Google, or anyone else, wants to stop this they have to go to federal court, because to ask the state court to throw out the law is to as them to throw out the state constitution. That precedent would be exceedingly dangerous. If I were a CA resident and the state supreme court threw out a legally passed constitutional amendment, the next amendment I'd propose would be one that throws out the current members of that court.
The only valid path I see for people against prop 8 is to get the Federal courts to declare it unconstitutional within the framework of the US Constitution, thus superceeding it being able to be in the California constitution.
> The only actual arguments I've seen against gay marriage are based on religious beliefs.
Okay, I'll bite. This is my opinion after some consideration, and I suspect my libertarian, pragmatic perspective will show. I am currently unpersuaded, but could be, to change my mind. I would welcome any calm discussion on the point.
I support marriage as an important government interest, with appurtenant rights, benefits, and the like. The simplest reason is that marriage produces children, and provides a support structure in which they can be raised to responsible adults. We, as a society, acknowledge this. That's why we don't cede children to the state to raise in some nationwide program. That's why we return displaced children to foster families (albeit often imperfectly). Marriage is a family structure that grows the population and, this is important for the government, creates future citizens of the country in the most healthy way we have in widescale practice.
There it is. The government of our society places a value on citizens for a future government. To encourage future citizens -- thus continuing the government and society -- the government provides benefits to its citizens who form the family structure. Yes, some married couples chose not to have children, or cannot. That does not, in any way, contradict the nuclear family's benefits and the government's interest in supporting them. These benefits have a dollar value attached. Tax credits, insurance breaks, free spousal benefits -- these are all provided to married couples at a cost to the government. In return, the average married couple provides children, which continue society.
This is the secular, often unspoken purpose. There are societal reasons, including legitimatizing heredity, or religious reasons, but the reason the government supports marriage with rights and benefits is that it guarantees a future for the country.
Gay couples cannot produce children. Any children present in a family headed by a gay couple are artificially placed and impossible without assistance from a third party. Considering our chromosomal structures, this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, with the possible exception of artificially created daughters for lesbian couples. Regardless, gay couples simply cannot reproduce. They can adopt -- as can single or heterosexual couples -- where the law permits. (I don't support impeding adoption for gays, by the way.)
Gay couples are formed for societal, personal reasons that have nothing to do with marriage in the religious or governmental definitions. The congregation of gays as couples makes perfect sense to some of them. Love is, truly, blind. There is no need for marriage, of any type, for a gay couple to live out their life in harmony with each other. The drive for marriage arises for two reasons that I can understand:
1) Societal acceptance and recognition on par with heterosexual marriages; and
2) Access to rights and benefits accorded married partners
The notion that gay couples desire government intervention and labeling to validate their relationship sickens me more than anything I hear from either side of this debate. My position is non-religious.
The desire for a group of individuals to require society to extend a set of rights and privileges to them in exchange for... nothing is pure entitlement. At base, with religion and talk of rights placed aside, this is what we're talking about.
Marriage as a right is a canard in this day and age, for governmental purposes. Marriage is still discriminatory as practiced by religious groups. If marriage as a right were at stake, the gay community should be outlawing religions that practice it. But it's not. Marriage as a government right doesn't exist.
Anyone can be married by a religion, and happily so to the end of their days. The state chooses not to recognize some marriages, however, such as polyamorist marriages. The reason a seemingly child-buster like that is no
"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."
So now having a particular political opinion should disqualify you from being an HR director?! This whole debate if FUBAR. We are only 2 steps away from everyone being a complete hypocrite. Does anyone else see that there's something wrong with this picture?
We have got to get rid of this whole government thing before it kills us all.
"I think people who think that gays are a very small minority are being insular and naive."
Or, we accept the best research available that shows that at most, homosexual individuals make up about 2% of the U.S. population. That is a very small minority. Could the number be higher than that? Certainly. However, no well-designed study yet has shown higher percents than that. In the future, even if the percent increases, it doesn't mean past research was wrong - people change.
At its core the question is if fags are like blacks (inherent trait) or if they are like screaming preachers/morons/drunks (obnoxious choices, legal but disdained).
I definitely chose to be gay. There are so many exciting parts about being gay--the discrimination I face on an almost daily basis, the scarring childhood and the emotional issues that continue to this day because of it, and the lack of civil rights I have. It makes TOTAL SENSE that I'd make a conscious choice to experience those horrible things instead of just being another straight guy, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.
I don't think most gays even want to get married. They just want what they can't have ('Reg can't have a baby, not having a womb which is nobodies fault, no even the Romans. But he can have the right to have babies...').
Um, gross generalization. I for one do want to get married to a man who I will love for the rest of my life, whether the law recognizes that or not. Do you know any, you know, gay people?
I say as they have legal 'domestic partnerships' then we must ether take away their 'shacked up gay couple benefits' or extend the same to co-habitating straight couples. Business will certainly go with the no-benes answer in most cases.
You mean the government should give straight couples common law marriages and the right to be married in the first place? Yeah clearly gay people have so many more 'shacked up couple benefits' than straight people. Like not being able to get married.
I understand your point and personally believe two people in marriage should pay the same identical taxes as if they were single, but just to stimulate the contrary side of why to consider taxing married people less, and government motivation:
- Married people are less of an overall burden on society due to being healthier (not that marriage in and of itself necessarily improves health). So, why not tax them less?
- Less overall risk due to higher statistical stability of someone married, as seen by lower insurance rates. Government loves a stable populous paying their taxes, and less likely to revolt or cause other issues, thus less statistical need to pay for any legal enforcement for them.
- Married people often have children. A country wants children for the sake of competing with other countries in terms of economic nationalism. In fact, gay people whom may not conceive through whatever means may adopt abandoned children in society, actually helping out overall.
Again, I agree with you, but I acknowledge their could be a purpose to encouraging marriage through taxes or however.
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.
And "The Southern Poverty Law Center" is categorized by The Traditional Values Coalition as poor on facts and substance. So what?
Everyone was treated equally under miscegenation laws as well. Everyone could marry someone of the same race. If you preferred someone of a different race, well, "having your preferences catered to by the state isn't something you can count on when you are a distinct minority."
Absolutely - Michael Ramsden has pointed out that "tolerating" something is actually quite a derogatory stance - I'd rather have someone disagree with me or agree with me than tolerate me - it implies a patronizing attitude.
But we don't subsidize expensive parts of child-rearing half as often as allow (which is like encourage for people who don't need much) people to have more, which is what the other guy was talking about.
If we really want kids to go to school why do we arrange to give their parent's arcane tax breaks instead of just making schools free? If we want to make sure they eat well why do we send their parent's money for cigarettes and alcohol instead of having free food kiosks?
Whatever the intention may be, it just serves to make children significantly cheaper for poor parents, insignificantly cheaper for richer parents, and do absolutely nothing to get the benefits to the children. It's like sending aid to refuge camps, via the dictator who put the people there...
I saw a PBS program interviewing an anthropologist who's been studying baboons for the last 30 years. What was especially fascinating is that unlike other famous primate researchers who loved their objects of study, he admitted that for the most part he despised baboons. In his words "For the most part, they're machiavellian bastards." The alpha males pound on the betas, who pound on the lesser males, who pound on the females, who pound on the adolescents, and so it goes all the way to infants. No surprise, baboons suffer from all the stress diseases found in human beings. The only members of a baboon troup who seem not to suffer, are the Alpha males. As you can see, human beings have traveled a lesser distance from their primate relatives than they would like to admit.
We can no longer afford to be driven by stupid, primitive, urges, not when the reptile brain being goaded has it's finger on the button which launches nukes, bio and chemo weapons, and god knows what other kinds of mass destruction. Xenophobia, Fundamentalist Magical Thinking, Bigotry based on any race, creed, religion, or sexual/gender expression, is simply an indulgence which our society can no longer afford.
What makes America great, is that human freedom, and the right to be, outweighs fear, and prejudice, and ignorance. You have the right not to agree with what people say or do... If you find pork or shellfish unclean, don't eat them. That doesn't give you the right, to go around killing others for eating those things, it doesn't even give you the right to legislate the rights of others away. Everyone is born into a culture. Each culture has an innate sense of what it finds taboo, unacceptable, and morally proper. However, those various taboos, differ from culture to culture (a pretty good hints that such behaviors have no basis in universal absolutes.) If we're going to live on the same planet, we can't go around paving our beliefs over the bodies of others. That's how wars start, and I'd be very happy to end the global conversation "I'm right and I'm perfectly willing to kill you to prove it" once and for all.