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
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.
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.
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
"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.
In my opinion, churches that take stances on political issues like that should lose their tax-exempt status, as the clause under which they are tax exempt clearly prohibits political activism.
The problem is, this isn't really a political issue, it is a social issue. I'm certainly not saying I agree with them, I was very dissapointed when my home state passed a law similar to prop 8 a few years ago.
IMHO, marriage is a personal (and sometimes religious) choice, and as such the government should just stay out of it. I don't know where religios people get off trying to tell gay people that they don't have the right to share insurance, file taxes together, and visit each other in the hospital; which are about the only rights being legally married entitles you to anyway.
Just change the wording in all the laws from marriage to civil union and be done with it. If you want to get married, go to a church that will marry you, but don't expect the government to recognize it, and that goes for both straight and gay couples. If you want the rights legally married people currently have, go fill out the paperwork for a civil union at the courthouse, and that also goes for both straight and gay couples.
The LDS church doesn't try to influence politics in the realm of economy, war, labor laws, taxes, etc (many things that directly effect the actual organisation that is the church). There is only one area that the church gets in politics for, and that is things regarded as a threat to the family, which is most important to the church. That is definitely not the same as denouncing an entire political platform. And frankly same sex marriage is a religious issue that has proded its way into politics because of the way government deals with marriage. A church shouldn't lose tax-exemption over a religious issue.
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...
It affects lots of things, such as adoption, hospital visits, and survivorship. how'd you like to live with someone for 40 years and lose your house when he dies because you can't automatically inherit the place of residence? There are lots of benefits to marriage that gays are being denied.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I'll challenge Preparation H too. It tastes disgusting and doesn't work at all. I may as well shove the tube up my ass for all the good it does.
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.
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.
And frankly same sex marriage is a religious issue that has proded its way into politics because of the way government deals with marriage.
Exactly. That's why the government should have nothing to do with marriage and churches should have nothing to do with legal rights associated with what we'll call a civil union. Any church of any creed, catholic, wiccan, psychodelic cyberparish of the new voudon, whatever, can perform or not perform marriages for whomever and excluding whomever they wish. But the partnership with all the legal ramifications would be the civil union, and being a secular, government thing, it would not be allowed to discriminate. If a couple wanted both then they would have to see both the priest (or priestess) and the appropriate representative of secular authority for two different ceremonies.
Loose lips lose spit.
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.
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
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.'"
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.
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."
> 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