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. "
why could the timing have been better? how are the two related?
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
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.
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.
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.
If Google can win this lawsuit, then any action by Government can be challenged by the same basis. High taxes in California has caused a number of companies to move, and more importantly, a number of individuals. If not being able to hire talent because of gender based marriage gets legal protection, then taxes, school systems, real estate costs.... wow. Maybe I hope they don't win.
"On the other hand, if something is wrong, it doesn't matter how many people agree with a wrong view, they are still wrong."
Just curious, how do we define wrong in an unambiguous, culturally- and time-insensitive manner?
Speaking as an American expat now living in Canada, crap like this is a big cause of the accelerating brain drain of educated, talented people (gay and otherwise) moving north to find civilization. In a few decades, you can expect the US to be even more dominated by the Sarah Palin crowd, with Canada having swiped a significant chunk of the US's triple-digit-IQ population.
And that is why Google is concerned. They're not sure how much innovation they'll be able to maintain when their head of R&D is Joe the Plumber.
The religous conservative side argues that to them marriage has always meant a man and a woman.
The group of people pushing for prop 8 want it to now mean two people, possibly of the same sex.
The religous group finds this offensive because it would in their eyes devalue the term marriage.
The pro-prop 8 group says this is silly and that the religous right should change their fundamental beliefs to accept them as equals.
Another poster suggested that the Federal government and all the state governments should simply remove all instances of the word "marriage" and replace it with "civil union" and only issue "Civil Union" licenses from here on out. Convert all existing marriages to civil unions in the records. Let the religous people afraid of their term for a civil union between a man and a woman, marriage, from being altered and move on as a society. There are bigger things we can be debating than quibbling over the usage of a word.
It seems that most who are against gay marriage are either generally anti-gay and/or rather religious (and still view marriage as a church, male+female institution).
As a taxpayer, one thing that concerns me more is the current court cases (see BC, Canada) with polygamy.
It seems to me that being married to multiple partners muddles the whole benefits/insurance/etc situation a lot more than gay marriages would.
I for one find the concept that a state (or country) for that matter could change its constitution with a simple 50% majority vote deeply disturbing. ...
/. (from a digital point of view ;-)
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
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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 of California would have a strong effect on their hiring operations, if the above is in fact par for the course.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
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.
I don't think the state should "recognize" or "forbid" ANY "marriage."
If two people want to enter into a contract that obligates them to sexual monogamy or establishes joint custody of children, etc., so be it, they should be able to do that. And if an insurer wants to give a discount for people in such relationships, then more power to them.
But marriage shouldn't have any effect on how much tax you pay, and it should not elevate or abridge anyone's rights, ever.
Traditional marriage favors certain classes of people over others: Good looking people with money and people with certain other social advantages, and people who choose to reproduce, are in a category that finds a natural fit for "marriage", where others do not. The idiom of marriage is simply not a context that fits well in a system of government that is aimed at equal protection and equality.
It should not be an institution of the state *at all*, and if it were simply a social phenomenon, we wouldn't be having this argument -- and if the ideas behind conventional "marriage" were enforced by binding *contracts*, we would also see very different patterns in the realm known today as "divorce."
I've just started telling people I don't "recognize" marriage using exactly the same talking points being used against "same sex" marriage, just leaving out the "same sex" parts.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
May I also point out that marriage is essentially irrelevant in today's world?
The way kids and adults fuck around, why bother with marriage? A family doesn't require marriage, only a man and a woman.
When the time comes, my own marriage will be noted in the front cover of a big Bible, as will any offspring. I don't need the big, bad gov't to recognize it.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
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.
It probably had more to do with their lack of education, conservative leaning, or religions affiliation:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Demographics
We already did separate but equal. It doesn't work out
Okay, you said any 2. But why are you imposing your values on everybody? Who gave you the right to say 2 is the magic number? And since we're already saying that marriage has nothing to do with procreation, which we are when we allow homosexual marriage, then why should inbreeding be a concern either?