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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I read that as Google Challenging Preparation H
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
I'll get modded down in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
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.
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
"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.
"Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition in the November 4, 2008, general election. It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases."
Wikipedia Source
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.
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.
DP partner benefits are taxable. Marriage benefits are not.
Still that applies only to state taxes until federal Defense of Marriage is modified.
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.
...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...
"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...
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.
Wait didn't you hear about the new Google Gay Marriage beta? Dude, seriously, get with the times! I'd be more than happy to share my invites.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
Thanks Google for "Doing no evil". I'm also glad to see many other companies on board too. Apple and MS included.
Two comments. First - the New Testament part of the Bible also condemns homosexuality.
Second. Some argue about the degradation/deterioration of the family in a nation being correlated to its demise (e.g., Rome's "family values" got pretty bad, especially as it applied to mistresses/prostitutes/marriage/kids). Saying it doesn't affect (or, as you more strongly put it, "harm") anyone but the two people involved is, IMO, an understatement. You may as well say that prostitution or gambling doesn't affect anyone but those directly involved. Family, friends, acquaintances (kids, in the gay marriage case?) are all affected.
Whether or not the effect is bad is partially what should be considered, too.
It's also interesting (I guess this makes #3) to point out that not allowing gay marriage doesn't mean gays can't live together; it means the government doesn't recognize it as a marriage. Which is, by this time, almost a name-only thing. I am guessing it has similar arguments (the non-legalizing it) as not allowing polygamy and bestiality to be legal marriage unions. Except homosexuals can be domestic partners, polygamists cannot be domestic partners with 2+ others, and you can't be a domestic partner of a cat.
Short version: there's a lot more to it than "it's between the two men or women, it doesn't affect anyone or anything else, so why is it illegal?"
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.
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.
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 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
No, it's not. There are a lot of both state and federal laws that require having a legally recognized marriage.
I'd argue that the slow erosion of rights, and the utter contempt for the constitution shown lately is far more indicative of the slow demise of a nation than gays wanting to marry. Allowing gays to marry should be a given, and the idiots pursuing this amendment should instead focus on protecting the rights of others. Except they don't care about the rights of others, as we've seen.
There is, but only for those who stop and think about the issue. For those who pursued the amendment, their thought was "a man and a man getting married just isn't right" and they stop thinking there. If you press them, they'll spout some misleaing nonsense that you highlighted, or they'll refer back to their religious texts.
It's not simple. But those who pursue this law made it out to be.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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.
Upon closer examination a typo was found in proposition 8 that limits marriage to being between one man and one wolfman.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/typo_in_proposition_8
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.
wow. just wow.
I'm sorry, how exactly are they discriminating against those who quote have faith unquote?
Given the context, I can only presume that you are referring to a having a religious faith belief in which marriage is reserved for a man and a woman and no other combination.
That's all fine and well, but how is Google discriminating against those who have that belief? Are they blocking visitors who have that belief? Are they not hiring people who have that belief? Are they firing those who have that belief?
There is no discrimination going on there. You are certainly more than free to withdraw yourself as one of their customers, but please don't delude yourself that this is about their decision to accept gay marriage - this is about *you* not being able to accept, or at least tolerate, that decision.
Just for the record and because I don't feel like making another post on this...
I don't believe in marriage between gay couples either. Marriage has become, in my opinion, a Christian religious institute, and as long as that particular religion says no to gay marriages, I think that's something we all must either accept - and work to change within that particular religion if one feels strongly enough to do so. ( I figure if 'your' religion says gay marriage is a no-no and you believe otherwise, then maybe you don't quite align with that particular religion.)
However, I do strongly believe in legal partnerships between gay people with any and *all* rights (and responsibilities) that a marriage would give. That includes tax provisions, insurance provisions, benefits, adoption rights, and so forth and so on. All too often a legal partnership does not even come close to having the same rights (or responsibilities) that a marriage does, and that is truly a travesty that delineates once more the lack of separation of state and church (in many nations that claim to have or support such separation).
Just my 2cts.
Google isn't formally challenging Prop 8 in court. (I don't think there's any way a corporation would have standing to do so.) They've signed an amicus brief in support of several other cases. An amicus brief only gets as much attention as the judge wants to give it; unlike briefs filed by actual parties, the court can disregard them entirely. Google has essentially just submitted a general statement on its position to the courts--not quite the same as mounting a "challenge" to the legislation.
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
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."
You know, if you'd left out the word "republican", you would probably come of sounding like you're making a point. As it is, you simply sound like you're a partisan republican-basher.
"Gay Marriage" obfuscates the real problem - discrimination against single people. Outlaw discrimination on the basis of marital status and you have no need for gay marriage, and people won't get married just for tax beaks, etc.
There are elderly people who love each other very much but divorce because one gets ill and runs up huge bills. Why should the spouse suffer?
When I got divorced, the part of my pension earned during marriage is "joint property" according to Illinois law. IMO that's insane and unfair, it isn't 1955 any more, women work these days, too.
Free Martian Whores!
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?
You are oversimplifying the issue. Things like drugs and polygamy and suicide are outlawed because, at some point a consensus was reached that those things did harm too much harm to society as a whole to be allowed.
How much harm drugs, polygamy, or suicide do to our society is still debated, and I've heard rational (or at least semi-rational) arguments on both sides of those issues, but I have never ever heard a single rational argument as to how gay marriage harms our society.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Whew, that's a level of whoosh I'm having a hard time distinguishing from trolling, but I'll make a go at explaining it. I'm not talking about workplace discrimination (which is a separate evil that I will leave aside for brevity), I'm talking about the laws of the society itself being altered by bigots to discriminate against a group of citizens. In my mind Prop 8 is functionally indistinguishable from the anti-mixed-race-marriage laws of the last century, which aptly met their demise in the 1967 Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia.
Now I'm sure the nimrod brigade will respond with "BUT DUH STDDEV, WHY NO WORKPLACE IF GOOGLE COMPANY WORK WORK WORKPLACE DUH PC DUHHHHHH????". Let me try to fill in the very short lines and dots here: Google is a company whose primary operations are in California. If California passes laws that negatively impact the civil liberties of current or potential Google employees, Google is an interested party in trying to get those laws repealed because it places an artificial restraint on their already difficult job of finding the cream of the computing crop to solve hard problems. That supporting the efforts to repeal Prop 8 is a morally correct decision is just icing on the cake, from a business standpoint.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
> 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.
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.
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."